High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
Dr. Maharaj Krishana Kapur Educational Charitable Trust & Management Society vs. Union Of India
Section 10(23C)(vi)
Asst. Year 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11
M.M. Kumar & H.S. Bhalla, JJ.
Case Writ Petn. No. 2047 of 2009
10th February, 2009
Counsel appeared :
S.K. Mukhi, for the Appellant
JUDGMENT
M.M. Kumar, J. :
The instant petition is directed against order dt. 8th Oct., 2008 (P-l) passed by the Chief CIT, Panchkula, declining the prayer of the petitioner for granting exemption under s. 10(23C)(vi) of the IT Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) in respect of asst. yrs. 2008-09 to 2010-11. The Chief CIT has held that the assessee-petitioner is generating huge surpluses year after year and that accumulation of capital expenditure for the assets of the school out of the income is not adequate to claim exemption as per the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs. Children Book Trust 1992 (3) SCC 390. The Chief CIT has also referred to the accounts of the assessee for the last 10 years revealing that the assessee-petitioner is generating substantial surpluses and the percentage of income applied for education purpose is less than the limit prescribed under cl. (a) of 3rd proviso of cl. (23C) of s. 10 of the Act. The details of accumulation of surpluses are apparent from the table which has been incorporated in the impugned order. In our view, the Chief CIT has rightly concluded that the assessee-petitioner was required to apply 75 per cent of its income for the educational purposes of the assessee upto the asst. yr. 2001-02. Thereafter from the asst. yr. 2002-03, the application of income has to be 85 per cent In other words, the assessee-petitioner could accumulate only 15 per cent of the income and if there is any excess accumulation then it has to be applied for the objects of the society within a period of five years. Accordingly, the exemption in respect of the asst. yrs. 2008-09 to 2010-11 was refused.
After hearing learned counsel at a considerable length, we are of the view that there is no legal infirmity in the order of the Chief CIT warranting admission of the petition. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.
[Citation : 326 ITR 385]
