[aaykarbhavan] Sections 2(15), 11 - Whether when an assessee is engaged in the activity of providing continuing education of diploma certificate programme, management development programme, public talk and seminars and workshop and conferences, it can be said as part of education which is included in Section 2(15) with the object of providing general public utility.

 

Sections 2(15), 11 - Whether when an assessee is engaged in the activity of providing continuing education of diploma certificate programme, management development programme, public talk and seminars and workshop and conferences, it can be said as part of education which is included in Section 2(15) with the object of providing general public utility.

 

2013-TIOL-465-ITAT-AHM

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
BENCH 'D' AHMEDABAD

ITA No.159/Ahd/2013
Assessment year 2009-10

AHMEDABAD MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
C/o MUKESH M PATEL & CO,
3-4, VITHALBHAI BHAVAN,
NEAR S P COLONY RLY CROSSING, AHMEDABAD
PAN/GIR No: AAATA5881D

Vs

JT DIT, (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

D K Tyagi, JM And A K Garodia, AM

Dated: March 22, 2013

Appellant Rep by: Shri Mukesh M Patel, AR
Respondent Rep by: Shri T Shankar, Sr. DR

Income Tax – Sections 2(15), 11 - Whether when an assessee is engaged in the activity of providing continuing education of diploma certificate programme, management development programme, public talk and seminars and workshop and conferences, it can be said as part of education which is included in Section 2(15) with the object of providing general public utility.

Assessee is a trust. During assessment, AO asked the assessee to file a note of activities of the trust and regarding the assessee's entitlement to exemption u/s 11 in view of the amended definition of Section 2(15). In reply, it was submitted that it had conducted various courses during the year and submitted a list of more than 800 programs conducted during the year and also submitted a detailed chart about expenses incurred in respect of each of suchprogramme, income earned there-from and resultant surplus or deficit. Thereafter AO had summarized such chart and bifurcated the same into 4 categories being (a) Continuing education Diploma & Certificate Programs, (b) Management Development Programs, (c) Public Talks & Seminars and (d) Workshops & Conferences. Out of the total receipt of Rs.411.91lacs, the receipt on account of first programme i.e. continuing education diploma & certificateprogramme, was to the extent of Rs.332.51 lacs and there was no receipt on account of public talk and seminars. Receipt on account of management development programme was of Rs.65.74 lacs and in respect of workshop and conferences Rs.13.66 lacs. The AO was of the opinion that on going through the nature of courses and duration, the resultant surplus for each activity, the activity of the assessee was not educational as defined by SC in the case of Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust Vs CIT (2002-TIOL-875-SC-IT-LB). By following thisjudgement of SC, it was held that the assessee's activities were not educational and since the receipts were more than Rs.10 lacs, the provisions of Section 2(15) were applicable and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled for exemption. AO refused to grant exemption to the assessee u/s 11 and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.1,42,11,129/-. AO further made addition of Rs.26,38,500/- on account of voluntary contribution as corpus donation received by the assessee during the year on this basis and since the assessee was denied exemption, for corpus donation claim, the same was also to be added back. On appeal, CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's contentions on the basis that the assessee had not appeared in spite of various opportunities and hence, held that the assessee had no evidence/submission to make with regard to the grounds of appeal raised. On this basis, CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Before Tribunal, AR had submitted that the object of the assessee society wa to make efforts towards the promotion and development of management in Gujarat, to promote education in practice of management and related subjects through meeting, discussion, lectures, research projects, seminars, conference, programmes of studies etc. It was submitted that it clearly showed that the entire activity of the assessee was only to promote education and therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) was not applicable which was applicable only to those activities which were in relation to the object of general public utility and not the main three objects i.e. relief to poor, education and medical relief. It was also submitted that all through since the formation of the assessee in the year 1967, the assessee was granted exemption u/s 11. It was also submitted that when the facts were identical in the current year, AO was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 11. Regarding reliance placed by the AO on the judgement of SC rendered in the case of Sole Trustee, LokaShikshana Trust, it was submitted that this judgement was not applicable in the present case because it was explained by Gujarat HC in the case of Gujarat State Cooperative Union Vs CIT that the observation of the SC in the case of Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust were not intended to give a narrow or pedantic meaning to the word 'education'. It was also explained that Gujarat HC had observed that SC had indicated that the word 'education' was not used in a loose sense so as to include acquisition of every knowledge by way of traveling, being victim of swindlers and thieves etc. and it was intended to apply the word education to schools, colleges and similar institutions and excluding any other media for such acquisition of knowledge. On the other hand, DR had submitted that this matter should go back to the file of CIT(A) for afresh decision because due to non appearance of the assessee before him, no finding had been given by him and therefore, the matter should go back to his file.

Having heard the matter, Tribunal held that,

++ in the case of Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust, the observation of SC was that, the facts of that case were these that the assessee was engaged in publishing and selling activity of news papers and journals and it was the claim of the assessee that the assessee was educating the Kannad speaking people through news papers and journals. Under these facts, this observation was made by SC that the sense in which the word 'education' has been used in Section 2(15) is the systematic instructions, schooling and resulting given to the minds preparing for the work of life. It is also observed by SC that the word education has not been used in the wide and extended sense according to which every action of further knowledge constitute education. SC observed that according to this wide and extended sense, traveling is education, because as a result of traveling you acquire fresh knowledge but this is not the sense in which the word education is used in clause 15 of Section 2. It was also observed that the word education in that clause is referring to the process of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and character of students by normal schooling. While perusing this judgement of SC, HC in the case of Gujarat State Cooperative Ltd.  has observed that the observation was not intended to keep out the meaning of the word 'education', persons other than young. Regarding the explanation of schooling, it was observed that this also means that schools instruct and educate.Therefore, the meaning of the word schooling, taken by Gujarat HC form the Oxford English dictionary Vol IX Page 217. Thereafter, it was observed by Gujarat HC that the observation of SC was not intended to give a narrow or pedantic sense to the word education. They had also observed that by giving further illustrations of a traveler gaining knowledge, being victim of swindler and thieves becoming wiser, visitor of night club adding to the knowledge of hidden mysteries of life, the SC had indicated that the word education is not used in a loose sense so as to include acquisition of such knowledge. In the present case, thus is not the objection of the revenue that the activity of the present assessee is like of an activity which are noted by Apex Court such as traveler gaining knowledge, victim of swindler and thieves becoming wiser and visitor of night club adding to the knowledge of hidden mysteries of life etc. It is also observed by Gujarat HC that the word school also means instruction or education. In the present case, this is not the case that by way of activity of the present assessee, the assessee is not engaged in the activity of instruction of education of the people/persons who are attending the programmes. In fact the assessee is granting diploma also and as has been noted by the A.O. himself in the assessment order, more than 80% of the receipts are on account of continuing education, diploma and certificate programmes. All the four activities noted by the A.O. on this page of the assessment order are not like those activities which were noted by SC to say that those activities cannot be covered by the term education in Section 2(15). In the light of the judgement of Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of Gujarat State Cooperative Union, where the Gujarat HC has explained the judgement of SC rendered in the case of Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust, we are of the considered opinion that in the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the activities of the assessee is no in the field of education and, therefore, not eligible for exemption u/s 11;

++ we have found that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered in favourof the assessee by the judgement of Gujarat High court cited by the A.R. having been rendered in the case of Gujarat State Cooperative union and the judgement of SC followed by the A.O. has been explained and considered by Gujarat High court in that case. Both thejudgements of Gujarat High Court cited by the D.R. are not rendering any help to the revenue in the present case and hence, by respectfully following the judgement of Gujarat high court in the case of Gujarat State Cooperative union, we decide the issue in dispute infavour of the assessee and we hold that the activities of the assessee are in the field of education and the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 11(1) in the absence of any other objection of the A.O. in this regard. Regarding the addition made by the A.O. of Rs.26,38,500/- in respect of corpus donation, we would like to observe that this addition was made by the A.O. on this basis that allowance of exemption were denied and hence, corpus donation has to be added to the income of the assessee. Since, we have held that the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 11, this addition also does not survive. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Assessee's appeal allowed

Case followed:

Gujarat State Cooperative Union Vs CIT as reported in 195 ITR 279 (Guj.).

Cases distinguished:

CIT Vs Sorabji Nusserwanji Parekh as reported in 66 Taxman 411 (Guj.)

Saurashtra Education Foundation vs CIT as reported in 141 Taxman 26 (Guj.)

ORDER

A K Garodia:

This is assessee's appeal directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) XXI, Ahmedabad dated 02.01.2013 for the assessment year 2009-10. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:

"The appellant respectfully submits as under:

1. That the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of the appellant in an ex-parte manner, alleging that, "the appellant had been given opportunities on various dates but there has been no compliance at all."

It is most respectfully submitted that this charge of the learned CIT (Appeals) against the appellant is clearly not justified, as duly highlighted in the letter dated 07/01/2013 addressed to him.

2. That the learned CIT (Appeals) further erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the learned A.O. in assessing the total income of the appellant at Rs.1,68,49,629 as against the returned income of Rs,62,523.

3. That the learned CIT (Appeals) further erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the learned A.O. in holding that the activities of the appellant were of a nature which could not be treated as a charitable purpose."

2. Brief facts of the case are that it is noted by the A.O. in the assessment order that the return of income declaring total income of R.62,523/- was filed by the assessee on 29.09.2009. In the course of scrutiny assessment proceeding, the A.O. asked the assessee to file a note of activities of the trust and regarding the assessee's entitlement to exemption u/s 11 of the Income tax Act, 1961 in view of the amended definition of Section 2(15). Reply was submitted by the assessee before the A.O. and the relevant portion has been reproduced by the A.O. in the assessment order. As per the reply, it was submitted by the assessee that the assessee has conducted various courses during the year under consideration and submitted a list of more than 800 programs conducted during the year and also submitted a detailed chart about expenses incurred in respect of each of such programme, income earned there-from and resultant surplus or deficit. This is also reproduced by the A.O. in the assessment order itself. Thereafter the A.O. has summarized such chart and bifurcated the same into 4 categories being (a) Continuing education Diploma & Certificate Programs, (b) Management Development Programs, (c) Public Talks & Seminars and (d) Workshops & Conferences. Out of the total receipt of the assessee of Rs.411.91 lacs, the receipt on account of first programme i.e. continuing education diploma & certificate programme, was to the extent of Rs.332.51 lacs and there was no receipt on account of public talk and seminars. Receipt on account of management development programme was of Rs.65.74 lacs and in respect of workshop and conferences Rs.13.66 lacs. The A.O. was of the opinion that on going through the nature of courses and duration, the resultant surplus for each activity, the activity of the assessee is not educational as defined by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust Vs CIT as reported in 101 ITR 234 (S.C.) = (2002-TIOL-875-SC-IT-LB). By following this judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court, it was held by the A.O. that the assessee's activities are not educational and since the receipts are more than Rs.10 lacs, the provisions of Section 2(15) are applicable and, therefore, the assessee is not entitled for exemption. He refused to grant exemption to the assessee u/s 11 and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.1,42,11,129/-. He further made addition of Rs.26,38,500/- on account of voluntary contribution as corpus donation received by the assessee during the year on this basis and since the assessee is denied exemption, for corpus donation claim, the same is also to be added back. Being aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal but the same was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) on this basis that the assessee has not appeared in spite of various opportunities and hence, he held that the assessee has no evidence/submission to make with regard to the grounds of appeal raised. On this basis, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee and now, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

3. In the course of hearing before us, it was submitted by the Ld. A.R. that on pages 1-32 of the paper book is the copy of Memorandum and Rules & Regulations of the assessee society which was registered under the Societies Registration Ac 1860 and Bombay Public Trust Act 1950. He drawn our attention to clause (d) of the objects clause on page 3 of the paper book as per which one object of the assessee society is to make efforts towards the promotion and development of management in Gujarat, to promote education in practice of management and related subjects through meeting, discussion, lectures, research projects, seminars, conference, programmes of studies etc. He submitted that his goes to show that the entire activity of the assessee is only to promote education and therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) is not applicable which is applicable only to those activities which are in relation to the object of general public utility and not the main three objects i.e. relief to poor, education and medical relief. He also submitted that all through since the formation of the assessee in the year 1967, the assessee was granted exemption u/s 11. He submitted that the copy of the assessment order in assessee's own case for various assessment years beginning from assessment years 1995-96 to 2008-09 are available on page 63-71 of the paper book. It was his submission that when the facts are identical in the current year, A.O. was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 11. Regarding reliance placed by the A.O. on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust (supra), it was submitted that this judgement is not applicable in the present case because it is explained by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Cooperative Union Vs CIT as reported in 195 ITR 279 (Guj.) that the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust (supra) were not intended to give a narrow or pedantic meaning to the word 'education'. It was also explained that Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has observed that Hon'ble Supreme Court has indicated that the word 'education' is not used in a loose sense so as to include acquisition of every knowledge by way of traveling, being victim of swindlers and thieves etc. and it is intended to apply the word education to schools, colleges and similar institutions and excluding any other media for such acquisition of knowledge. He also placed reliance on the tribunal decision rendered in the case of Sardar Patel Institute of Public Administration Vs JDIT (Exemption) in I.T.A.No. 2350/Ahd/2012 dated 04.01.2013 and he submitted a copy of this Tribunal decision. As against this, it was the first contention of the Ld. D.R. that this matter should go back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh decision because due to non appearance of the assessee before him, no finding has been given by him and therefore, the matter should go back to his file.

4. On merit, his submission was this that the issue in dispute in the present case is squarely covered against the assessee by the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana trust (supra). He also placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs Sorabji Nusserwanji Parekh as reported in 66 Taxman 411 (Guj.) and Gujarat State Cooperative Union Vs CIT as reported in 195 ITR 279 (Guj.).

5. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record and have gone through the orders of authorities below and the judgements cited by both the sides. Regarding the objection of the Ld. D.R. that the matter should go back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh decision because no decision has been given by him because of non appearance of the assessee before him, we are of the considered opinion that in the facts of the present case, the limited dispute is as to whether the activity of the assessee is in the field of education or not and the facts are not in dispute. Reliance has been placed by both the sides on several judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the jurisdictional High court and hence, we feel that sending the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) will be a futile exercise and hence, we proceed to decide the appeal of the assessee on merit after considering the submissions of both sides.

6. We find that in the present case, the only dispute is that as to whether the activity of the assessee, which include continuing education of diploma certificate programme, management development programme, public talk and seminars and workshop and conferences can be said to be education which is included in Section 2(15) of the Income tax Act, 1961 or it can be covered in the 4th object of Section 2(15) i.e. the object of general public utility. In this regard, we find that the first judgement available is the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust (supra). We also find that this judgement was explained by Hon'ble Gujarat high court in the case of Gujarat State Cooperative Union (supra). We also find that in the case of Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust (supra), the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court was this that the facts of that case were these that the assessee was engaged in publishing and selling activity of news papers and journals and it was the claim of the assessee that the assessee was educating the Kannad speaking people through news papers and journals. Under these facts, this observation was made by Hon'ble Apex Court that the sense in which the word 'education' has been used in Section 2(15) is the systematic instructions, schooling and resulting given to the minds preparing for the work of life. It is also observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that the word education has not been used in the wide and extended sense according to which every action of further knowledge constitute education. Hon'ble Apex Court observed that according to this wide and extended sense, traveling is education, because as a result of traveling you acquire fresh knowledge but this is not the sense in which the word education is used in clause 15 of Section 2. It was also observed that the word education in that clause is referring to the process of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and character of students by normal schooling. While perusing this judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court, Hon Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Cooperative Ltd. (supra) has observed that the observation was not intended to keep out the meaning of the word 'education', persons other than young. Regarding the explanation of schooling, it was observed that this also means that schools instruct and educate. Therefore, the meaning of the word schooling, taken by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court form the Oxford English dictionary Vol IX Page 217. Thereafter, it was observed by Hon'ble Gujarat High court that the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court was not intended to give a narrow or pedantic sense to the word education. They have also observed that by giving further illustrations of a traveler gaining knowledge, being victim of swindler and thieves becoming wiser, visitor of night club adding to the knowledge of hidden mysteries of life, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had indicated that the word education is not used in a loose sense so as to include acquisition of such knowledge. In the present case, thus is not the objection of the revenue that the activity of the present assessee is like of an activity which are noted by Hon'ble Apex Court such as traveler gaining knowledge, victim of swindler and thieves becoming wiser and visitor of night club adding to the knowledge of hidden mysteries of life etc. It is also observed by Hon'ble Gujarat High court that the word school also means instruction or education. In the present case, this is not the case that by way of activity of the present assessee, the assessee is not engaged in the activity of instruction of education of the people/persons who are attending the programmes. In fact the assessee is granting diploma also and as has been noted by the A.O. himself on page 11 of the assessment order, more than 80% of the receipts are on account of continuing education, diploma and certificate programmes. All the four activities noted by the A.O. on this page of the assessment order are not like those activities which were noted by Hon'ble Apex Court to say that those activities cannot be covered by the term education in Section 2(15). In the light of the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in he case of Gujarat State Cooperative Union (supra), where the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has explained the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust (supra), we are of the considered opinion that in the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the activities of the assessee is no in the field of education and, therefore, not eligible for exemption u/s 11.

7. Now, we consider the applicability of the two judgements cited by Ld. D.R.:-

- The first judgement is the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High court rendered in the case of CIT Vs Sorabji Nusserwanji Parekh (supra). We find that in that case, this is the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High court that in the fact of that case, it can be said that the assessee was not an educational institution and thus, was not entitled to total exemption u/s 10(22) although its income would be exempt u/s 11(1) to the extent it would apply for its objects. There is a wide difference between the provision of Section 2(15) and 10(22) regarding the term education. In section 2(15), the term used is charitable purpose includes education whereas in Section 10(22), the term used is this that any income of a university or other educational institution listed/registered for education purpose and not for the purpose of profit. The facts of that case were that the society out of its income had given outright grant to some of the schools and under these facts, it was held by Hon'ble Gujarat High court that simply by giving grant to institution to enable them to pursue their educational activities without any control whatsoever on such students, an institution cannot be said to be educational institution. This goes to show that this judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court is not applicable at all in the present case because the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High court is this that in the facts of that case, the assessee was not considered as educational institution and it is not eligible for exemption u/s 10(22) although it was held that the income of the assessee would be exempt u/s 11(1) to the extent it was applied for its objects and, therefore, in the present case, this judgement is not of any help to the revenue because in the present case, the claim of the assessee is not this that the assessee is an educational institution and hence, eligible for exemption u/s 10(22) or 10(23)C. Because the claim of the assessee is regarding exemption u/s 11 and for this claim, it was held by Hon'ble Gujarat High court in that case also that the income would be exempt u/s 11(1) to the extent it would apply for its objects hence, in our considered opinion, this judgement is of no help to the revenue in the present case.

- The 2nd judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court on which reliance has been placed by Ld. D.R. is the judgement rendered in the case of Saurashtra Education Foundation vs CIT as reported in 141 Taxman 26 (Guj.). In that case, the assessee conducted various classes for students of class 10, 11 & 12th and for C.A. entrance examination. The assessee also held refresher courses for teachers teaching in various schools. The assessee also held lectures, meetings, exhibitions and relevant educational topics. In view of these activities, the assessee claimed exemption u/s 10(22) of the Income tax Act, 1961. The relevant para of this judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court is para 8 which is reproduced below for the sake of ready reference:

"It is significant to note that while a trust holding property for a charitable purpose of education as defined by section 2(75) may also be an educational institution existing solely for the purpose of education, the two institutions cannot be treated as belonging to the same class. An institution may be carrying on educational activities as are being carried on by the assessee herein without imparting formal education and without being affiliated to or accountable to any authority. Such a trust can certainly be considered as qualifying for exemption under section 11(1)(a) read with section 2(15), but the term 'the educational institution' contemplated by section 10(22) is a narrower concept. Though 'educational institution' and the educational activities are closely interconnected: in section 11(l)(a), read with section 2(15) it is the activities which are in focus, whereas in section 10(22) both the institution and the activities are in focus. An educational institution under section 10(22) is therefore, more than a body carrying on charitable activities in the field of education as contemplated by section 2(15 )."

- From the above para of this judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, we find that it was held by Hon'ble Gujarat High court in that case that a trust who is carrying out educational activities without imparting formal education and was not affiliated to or accountable to any authority, can certainly be considered as qualifying for exemption u/s 11(1)(a) read with Section 2(15) but the term educational institution contemplated by Section 10(22) is a narrower concept. Thereafter, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court also considered the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshna Trust (supra). Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has also considered its own earlier judgement rendered in the case of Gujarat State Cooperative Union (supra) and it was observed that in that case, the assessee was conducting employees' training and running four training centers which conduct special courses for employees and urban cooperative bank, district cooperative bank and also employers. The assessee also conducted cooperative education programmes, consumer education programmes, women cooperative education programmes, special training classes in the district under cooperative education and industrial projects and centers as mentioned in the list of its activities. It was further observed by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court that it was in the context of these activities, it was held in that case, that the assessee was existing for educational purpose. In our considered opinion, this judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court cited by the Ld. D.R. is in fact supporting the case of he assessee and not the revenue. It was observed by Hon'ble Gujarat High court in that case that the as per the earlier judgement of the same court, it was held that education is not confined to teaching of young but the court did not draw away with the test of systematic instruction and training evolved by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the present case also, the activity of the assessee fulfills the satisfaction of this test of systematic instruction and training evolved by Hon'ble Apex Court. It could not be established by the revenue that the programmes undertaken by the assessee were not involving systematic education or training and hence, we hold that in our considered opinion, this judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High court is also not rendering any help to the revenue.

8. As per above discussion, we have found that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High court cited by the Ld. A.R. having been rendered in the case of Gujarat State Cooperative union (supra) and the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court followed by the A.O. has been explained and considered by Hon'ble Gujarat High court in that case. Both the judgements of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court cited by the Ld. D.R. are not rendering any help to the revenue in the present case and hence, by respectfully following the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat high court in the case of Gujarat State Cooperative union (supra), we decide the issue in dispute in favour of the assessee and we hold that the activities of the assessee are in the field of education and the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 11(1) in the absence of any other objection of the A.O. in this regard.

9. Regarding the addition made by the A.O. of Rs.26,38,500/- in respect of corpus donation, we would like to observe that this addition was made by the A.O. on this basis that allowance of exemption were denied and hence, corpus donation has to be added to the income of the assessee. Since, we have held that the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 11, this addition also does not survive.

11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

12. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned hereinabove.