By K. B. Bhujle, Advocate
Delhi Bureau of Text Books vs. DIT(Exemption); 394 ITR 387
(Del):
The assessee was registered as a charitable institution u/s.
12A(a) of the Act, 1961. It printed and published text books for Government
schools and sold them at subsidised rates with nominal profits. It also
distributed free books, reading material and school bags to needy students. Its
income was exempt from tax u/s. 11 of the Act, during the A. Ys. 1971-72 to
2005-06. It was denied the benefit of exemption for the A. Ys. 1975-76 and
1976-77, but the Commissioner (Appeals) restored the exemption and the same was
confirmed by the Tribunal. For the A. Ys. 2006-07 to 2009-10, the Assessing
Officer denied the exemption and the same was confirmed by the Appellate
Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the asessee’s activities were in the nature of
business, that compliance with the requirement of section 11 could be examined
in every assessment year, that in its earlier order for the A. Ys. 1975-76 and
1976-77, it had not considered the assessee’s income and expenditure statements
or other relevant evidence, that the assessee had not maintained separate books
of account for its activities of sale and purchase of books thereby violating
the provisions of section 11(4A), and that the assessee had made accumulation
in excess and ”without specifying any purpose” and “was not wholly for
charitable purposes”.
On appeal by the assessee, the Delhi High Court reversed the
decision of the Tribunal and held as under:
“i) The preparation and distribution of text books
contribute to the process of training and development of the mind and the
character of students. There does not have to be a physical school for an
institution to be eligible for exemption. What is important is the activity. It
has to be intrinsically connected to “education”.
ii) The Appellate Tribunal was incorrect in
denying exemption to the assessee u/ss 11 and 12 of the Act. It erred in
holding that the activities carried out by the assessee fell under the fourth
limb of section 2(15), “the advancement of any other object of general public
utility” and that its activities were not solely for the purpose of advancement
of education. It came to the erroneous conclusion merely because the assessee
had generated profits out of the activity of publishing and selling text books
that it had ceased to carry on the activity of “education”.
iii) It failed to consider the issue in the
background of the setting up of the assessee, its control and management and
the sources of its income and the pattern of its expenditure and that its
surplus amount was again utilised in its main activity of “education”. The
assessee contributed to the training and development of the knowledge, skill,
mind and character of the students.
iv) The exemption had been granted to the assessee
u/s. 11 and 12 from the A. Ys. 1971-72 to 2005-06 consistently for 34 years.
For the A. Ys. 1975-76 and 1976-77, grant of exemption had been restored by the
Appellate Tribunal which was not contested by the Department. Apart from the
fact that the assessee had earned more profits from its essential activity of
education, there was no change in the circumstances concerning its activity of
publishing and selling books during the A. Ys. 2005-06 to 2009-10. There was no
justification to warrant a different approach. Appeals are allowed.”
