High Court of Gauhati

Commissioner of Income-tax

v.

Assam State Book Production & Publication Corpn. Ltd.

P.G. AGARWAL AND M.B.K. SINGH, JJ.

IT APPEAL NOS. 88 OF 2003, 7 TO 10, 12, 15 TO 21, 23 AND 24 OF 2004

NOVEMBER 13, 2006

Section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Educational institutions - Assessment years 1981-82 to 1988-89 and 1990-91 to 1996-97 - Whether basic requirement of section 10(22) is existence of educational purposes, that is, imparting of education by way of teaching or training, etc. - Held, yes - Whether assessee-company, doing activities of preparing, printing, production, publication, sale, supply of text books, supplementary books, etc., could not be considered as an educational institution and, consequently, it was not entitled to deduction under section 10(22) - Held, yes

Facts

The assessee-company was incorporated with the main objects, inter alia, to prepare, print, publish, sale, supply or otherwise deal in text books, supplementary books and literature for primary, secondary and teachers’ education and to deal in any magazines, pamphlets, leaflets posters, journals, etc, to carry on business of press. In view of the said activities, the assessee contended that it was an educational institution existing solely for educational purposes and, hence, claimed exemption from the payment of income-tax under section 10(22). The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance. However, on second appeal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was an educational institution existing solely for educational purposes and, thus, eligible for exemption under section 10(22).

On revenue’s appeal:

Held

On a careful examination of the main objects and the objects incidental or ancillary to the main objects of the assessee, it was clear that the assessee had been doing the activities of production, printing and publication and sale of books and other commercial activities which were not the activities of an educational institution established solely for educational purposes within the meaning of section 10(22). The main objects of the assessee were neither to run any educational institution nor to impart training, teaching through any colleges, etc. In fact, the assessee did not involve in any activities of teaching, imparting training by itself. The intention of the Legislature is to give exemption only to the university or educational institution which are existing solely for educational purposes and not for the purposes of profit. [Para 10]

The basic requirement of section 10(22) is the existence of educational purposes, that is, imparting of education by way of teaching or training, etc. In the absence of such training activities, the provision of section 10(22) are not applicable to any firm or corporation. [Para 11]

The activities of the assessee, by any stretch of imagination, could not be considered as that of an educational institution established for imparting teaching, training, etc. If the assessee was to be taken as an educational institution within the meaning of section 10(22) for doing the activities of production, printing, sale of text books to the primary and secondary schools, etc., it would open the flood gates to others whose activities are to supply approved note books, school dresses, etc., for claiming exemption of income-tax under section 10(22). [Para 12]

The assessee had not done anything relating to teaching, training or education either by itself or through any school in any relevant assessment year except to print, publish and sale of text books at the subsidized rate. Therefore, it could not be held that the assessee was an educational institution within the meaning of section 10(22). [Para 14]

In the result, the orders of the Tribunal were to be quashed and the appeal was to be allowed. [Para 15]

Case Review

Aditanar Educational Institution v. Addl. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 310/90 Taxman 528 distinguished on facts [Para 10]

Oxford University Press v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 658/115 Taxman 69 followed [Para 11].

Cases referred to

Aditanar Educational Institution v. Addl. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 310/90 Taxman 528 (SC) [Para 9], Oxford University Press v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 658/115 Taxman 69 (SC) [Para 10].

U. Bhuyan for the Appellant. K.H. Choudhury, U.K. Borthakur and S.K. Muktar for the Respondent.

 

nn