Case Law Details
Whether Pre-School would fall in the term ‘education’ as envisaged u/s 2(15):
We have gone through the reasoning given by the Ld. DIT and we find that the view adopted by him is not only contrary to law and facts, but we also find it to be highly myopic and regressive. In today’s world the ‘education’ has attained its unprecedented dimensions. With the advancement of technologies and evolution of multi cultural socities, the complexities in business and real life situations have grown many folds. Under such circumstances, need for appropriate education for each and every person right from its childhood can never be over emphasized. The education has got different meaning, purpose or object for each person depending upon its position and background. We have education of various types e.g. Pre-schooling, schooling, higher education, professional education, vocational training, professions training etc etc.
After completing the school education, students go for higher education which may be obtained through college, university or they may choose to go for a professional course even after completing the professional qualification. There are many post qualification courses. That is to convey that ‘education’ may begin at any stage and it may go on throughout the life of a person. Under these circumstances, one cannot isolate ‘education’ given at one of the stages to say that it should not be treated as part of ‘education’. The pre-schooling has become today a mandatory prelude to school education. It is like step number one in the ladder. If step number one is taken properly, then other higher steps would be achievable more efficiently and effectively. That is the purpose as has been understood by the parents who send their kids to preschools and it has become a mandatory requirement today for all the schools imparting quality educations. It is because sending a child to pre-school is like preparing a sapling of the tree to be planted in the fields. Recently, Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ADIT (Exemption) vs Jeevan Vidya Mission (ITA Nn 770/M/2014 Dt 30-09-2015 analysed scope of the term ‘Education’ as envisaged by the legislature while mentioning it u/s 2(15). Observation given in the order may be useful here and therefore reproduced hereunder:
“8.1 In our considered opinion, based upon analysis of the facts of this case, the assessee trust is engaged in the field of ‘education7~ In our considered view, based upon our understanding of law, there is no merit in the order of Assessing Officer to give a restricted meaning to the scope of meaning of term educational activities. It is not necessary that there should be holding of regular classes or wholesome educational activities to be only eligible to be called educational activities eligible for benefits under section 11 and 12. As per our understanding, the term “education” is of wide scope and amplitude, especially in the context of section 2(15). In this fast evolving society, the term ‘education’ has assumed greater role and significance, then ever. Education has got pivotal role in evolution of a society. Therefore, keeping this crucial aspect in mind, the legislature in its wisdom had decided to place this activity within the definition clause of the term “charitable purpose”, as per section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the term ‘charitable purpose’ includes … “education” … Thus, the very activity of education itself has been included within the meaning of the term ‘charitable purpose’. It may further be seen that activity of imparting “education” has been specifically included in the definition, thus showing that the intention of the legislature, very clearly, is to promote education, which is further fortified by the fact that when the first proviso was inserted to section 2(15), the activity of ‘education’ was not covered therein and only other object of general public utility alone was covered therein. The first proviso was brought in to curtail the scope of ‘charitable purpose’ with respect to the activities of general public utility, by excluding the same from this definition, if it involved carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business. Further, even after huge litigation with respect to blanket exemption to educational institutions, when the amendment was made by the Finance Act, 2009, the activity of the education was kept outside the purview of newly inserted proviso. Thus, impliedly, it can be said that, it is clear that the legislature has given great significance to the utility of ‘education’ in our country.”
Further, it is noted in the case of Life Shines Educational & Charitable Trust (supra) Chennai Bench of the Tribunal held that “pre-schooling’ shall fall within meaning and scope of the ‘education’ as used u/s 2(15). Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion and facts of this case, we do not find any justification in the view adopted by the Ld. DIT that pre-schooling is not part of education activity. In our considered view pre-schooling is very much integral part of the term ‘education’ as has been envisaged u/s 2(15) of the Act and we hold so.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
