This is appeal filed by assessee against order of ld. CIT(A) dated 29-1-2007 for assessment year 2003-04. 2. In Ground No. 1, assessee is aggrieved that impugned assessment under section 143(3) dated 17-3-2006 is bad in law and same may be quashed. 3. Ground No. 1 of assessee is general in nature which need no adjudication by us. 4. In Ground No. 2.1, assessee is aggrieved that ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming impugned assessment framed by Assessing Officer, assessing business income in hands of appellant though it was educational institution. assessment so framed and confirmed by ld. CIT(A) is being without jurisdiction and contrary to Provisions of law and same may be quashed. 5. In Ground No. 2.2, assessee is aggrieved that ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming taxing whole income of Rs. 1,90,01,630 which is otherwise exempt under section 10(23)(c) as claimed by appellant. income so taxed being totally contrary to Provisions of law and facts and hence same may be deleted in full. Alternatively Assessing Officer may be directed not to assess subjected income until decision by prescribed authority. 6. Briefly basic facts of case, as are coming from orders of authority below are that appellant is samiti, registered with Registrar of Societies, Jaipur since 19-10-1975 under Societies Act, 1958 of Rajasthan. samiti was set up amongst other objects with main object of imparting Technical & management education and training without any profit motive in. (1)Maharishi Arvind College of Pharmacy, Ambabari Circle Jaipur. (2)Maharishi Arvind Institute of Science & Management, Ambabari Circle Jaipur. (3)Maharishi Arvind Institute of Engineering & Technology, Mansarovar, Jaipur. return of income for assessment year 2003-04 declaring total income of Rs 1,93,01,630 was filed on 3-11-2003. Though total income was shown in return of income at Rs. 1,93,01,630, however tax on total income was shown at nil for reason that appellant, by way of note put on computation claimed exemption since its application in form No. 56D under rule 2CA under section 10(23C)(vi) or (via) filed on 31-12-1999". case was selected for scrutiny. During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer noticed that appellant was not having registration under section 12AA of Act nor any exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) was available. When asked, appellant responded vide letter dated 27-12-2005, mainly stating that Samitit had already submitted necessary application, through Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur vide application submitted on 31-12-1999. Further Samiti had also submitted another application under section 10(23C) read with Rule 2 of Income-tax Rules, as matter of abundant precaution, for impugned assessment year 2003-04 on 20-12-2005 to Chief commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, through Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur- II. In assessment order, however Assessing Officer observed in para 8 of assessment order that on going through details of receipt and expenditure, it was clear that Samiti had generated huge profits by charging abnormal amounts of fees from students and by not paying salary to lecturers at par with Government Colleges or Institutions. Because of these reasons, Assessing Officer held that Samiti was existing for purpose of profit. Further as per discussion in para 9 of assessment order, Assessing Officer also gave his finding that some of interested persons, as specified in sub section (3) of section 13 of Income-tax Act, had been conferred benefit from income of samiti. Therefore, as per para No. 10, Assessing Officer issued show cause notice dated 21-2-2006 to appellant stating that, in view of his finding (as mentioned in Para 8 & 9) and in view of fact that appellant assessee had not been granted exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) by prescribed authority, why income of Samiti be n o t taxed as per law without giving any benefit of exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of Income-tax Act and proposing to assess its income treating net income as business income. appellant replied to show cause notice vide its letter dated 10-3-2006. Assessing Officer considered said reply, but did not find it acceptable. Thereafter, Assessing Officer as per discussion in para 12 & 13 of assessment order, came to conclusion in para 14 of assessment order that in absence of exemption, income of samiti cannot be treated as exempt under section 10(23C)(vi), income of assessee is assessed under head "Income from Business and Profession" as per income and expenditure account. 7. In first appeal, ld. CIT(A) also confirmed order of Assessing Officer upto this extent, after taking note of above facts and allegations and held that merely because application filed by samiti, was pending with prescribed authority, appellant does not become entitled to exemption under section 10(23C) of Income-tax Act. Therefore, Assessing Officer has rightly denied exemption under section 10(23C) of Income-tax Act to appellant. 8. Before us, ld. Counsel for appellant Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate, at outset submitted that by time of making assessment and upto decision in first appeal, exemption under section 10(23C)(vi), was not available despite best efforts made by appellant and despite filing same on two occasions i.e., in year 1999 and thereafter, in year 2005, same was pending before CBDT and hence authorities below taxed income for want of such exemption. ld. CIT(A) also therefore confirmed action of Assessing Officer although appellant made detailed arguments even on merits of case to hold appellant to be education institution. Hence this appeal. However he submitted that above appeal is now fully covered in favour of appellant in as much as approval under section 10(23C)(vi) of Income-tax Act has been granted by CBDT, New Delhi vide its order in F. No. 197/115/2006-ITA-I dated 7-2-2007 for assessment year 1999-00 to 2001-02. copy of said order is enclosed in paper book at paper book pages 1-2 , 4, 5, 51 & 52. He further submitted that originally, such exemption once granted, were meant and limited only for period of 3 years under rule 2CA(3). However, by Income-tax (fourteenth amendment) Rules, with effect from 24-11-2006, implies any such exemption granted on or after 1-12-2006 shall be for limitless period or in other words for ever. This has also been clarified vide notification No. 2019(E) dated 24-11-2006 (PB 51-52). appellant for sake of clarity therefore, filed application dated 22-12-2006 (PB 3) before CBDT to make suitable amendment accordingly. Hence modified order dated 16-3-2007 (PB 4-5) has also been passed wherein exemption has been granted once for all. In other words, benefit of exemption thus, is also available in subjected year i.e., assessment year 2003-04. He further drew our attention towards orders for assessment year 2000-01 & 2004-05 passed by ld. CIT(A) vide orders dated 26-3-2007 & 28-3-2007 respectively, copies placed at assessees Paper Book pages 19-34 and submitted that ld. CIT(A) also granted exemption under section 10(23)(c)(vi) by reversing order of Assessing Officer who treated surplus as Business Income in as much as those two years were also directly covered by above mentioned CBDT approval. Hence addition made in those two years stood deleted in full. He further submitted that CBDT has granted such approval after making detailed enquiry and investigation into facts of activity of appellant. CBDT thus, satisfied itself that appellant samiti existed solely for education and not for purpose of profit. ld. AR Sh. Mahendra Gargieya further submitted that appellant had already been enjoying exemption under section 10(22) of act in past. However for assessment year 1996-97 to 1999-00, when Assessing Officer granted exemption but ld. CIT passed revision order under section 263, Honble ITAT quashed said order in ITA No. 294-297/JPR/2003 vide their order dated 14-6-2004 (PB 35-50) whereby original assessment orders for these four years have been maintained and restored. In these years Assessing Officer specifically recorded finding that appellant was Educational Institution solely existing for education and not for purpose of profit and therefore, was entitled to exemption under section 10(22) of Act. Adverting to various allegations made by Assessing Officer in assessment order, ld. AR further submitted that other allegations of Assessing Officer was that appellant did not file return of income (ROI) till notices under section 148 were issued for assessment years 1996-1997 to 1999-200. We may submit that such allegation is also baseless in light of above submissions. appellant already having been enjoying exemption under section 10(22) in past, was not required to file ROI. More particularly, for these four years matter traveled upto Honble ITAT as mentioned by Assessing Officer at page 2 para 5(ii). ITAT has already quashed order under section 263 in ITA No. 294-297/JPR/2003 vide their order dated 14-6-2004(PB 35-50) whereby original assessment orders for these four years have been maintained and restored. In these years Assessing Officer specifically recorded finding that appellant was Educational Institution solely existing for education and not for purpose of profit and therefore, was entitled to exemption under section 10(22) of Act. Further allegation was that department has not accepted said decision of ITAT and has gone in appeal before Honble High Court under section 260A. Suffice to say that unless operation of order of inferior court is not stayed or is not reversed by superior court, merely by filing of appeal, against order of inferior court to superior court, order of inferior court cannot loose its binding force. Therefore, there is no substance in allegation of ld. Assessing Officer. With regard to allegation to effect that appellant stated that it was self regulatory course and there is no restriction at all placed by any government authorities as such. Assessing Officer further alleged that similar was position in assessment year 2000-01 and 2004-05. However, ld. Assessing Officer has totally lost sight of this vital fact that funds so generated, were utilized towards creating other assets, infrastructure and more particularly educational institutions, i.e., Engineering and Pharmacy Colleges were promoted out of these funds. It must be appreciated that in absence of infrastructure, say for example building, laboratory other equipments etc. for running these educational institutions, appellant would have to make payment of substantial amount on account of rent for building and so called substantial profit, repeatedly alleged by Assessing Officer, would have been reduced to great extent. It was submitted that Samiti started with small capital fund of Rs. 4.21 lacs as at 31-3-1991 and fixed assets at Rs. 4.86 lacs. Up to year ended 1991, it was running primary school, and diploma in pharmacy only. However thereafter samiti fastly developed and statics show sharp increase in surplus generated and investments in fixed assets from 1991 to 2006, as per graph (PB 32). Capital fund of Samiti, which stood in 1991 at 4.09 lacs rose to Rs. 884.54 lacs as on 31-3-2003 and to Rs. 2074.79 lacs as at 31-3-2006. investment in fixed assets rose from 5.03 lacs in 1991 to Rs. 1029.28 lacs as on 31-3- 2004 and Rs. 1257.32 lacs as at 31-3-2006. figures themselves show Samiti has invested entire surplus from year to year in creating infrastructure f o r imparting education. This growth and development would not have been possible if funds generated by Samiti by running various institutions and colleges were not invested for object of Samiti, i.e., imparting of education. If we consider market value of land and building alone, value of land and building would be 20 times value appearing in balance sheets. entire assets stand in name of Samiti and not in name of any of members. As such, it cannot be said that Samiti exists for benefit of members. Making further reference to some more graphs and charts at paper book page 33, it was submitted that samiti was first samiti in entire state which took up challenge and opened Engineering College t Mansarovar, Jaipur in year 2000. number of seats today in five faculties of engineering is 400. total strength of engineering college lo n e is 1600, leaving number of students for other colleges/courses separately. This way, Samiti has not only contributed to social cause of samiti, but also fulfilled objects for which Samiti was established. As such, Samiti has been engaged solely for imparting education and not for passing on benefit to trustees, or for profit. 9. Further to meet with allegation of Assessing Officer that there is vast difference between fee charged by it from students towards free seats and certain examples given by Assessing Officer to make comparison of fees charged by appellant from students of two different types of seats, in different course and also allegation that similar was position, in different assessment years, it was vehemently submitted that another notable aspect is that All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), which is Government of India organization, set up under statute enacted by parliament, with view to regulate activities of all types of education, is responsible for maintenance of pre determined standards of education in country. It was submitted that AICTE had been carrying out regular periodical inspections of institutions, premises, and other infrastructure like library books, laboratory equipments, computers and other facilities with appellant for courses run by institutions under approval granted by such authority and notably no adverse remarks at all were made by them in their report on this aspect. Of course, appellant is free to decide fee structure for these courses yet it was governed under direct control and supervision of said AICTE. Hence, one could not have apprehended of any misutilization of alleged higher fees. Therefore there was nothing wrong if appellant was charging higher fees by taking decision in best and overall interest of institution, which solely exists with object of imparting best education. It was submitted that facts and figures mentioned by Assessing Officer are incorrect to be extent that Assessing Officer has failed to give ratio of free seats and payments its in absence of which any conclusion drawn by Assessing Officer is misleading and biased. ld Assessing Officer has also not appreciated background for allotment of such seats by government to institutions in general. We may submit that fees from students of free seats, what appellant has been charging, is much below break even point. In other words, what appellant charges rather results into loss on free seats, however with view to compensate Institutes, government has purportedly and intentionally allowed them to charge more fees from students of payment seats. educational institution is thus able to recover to some extent, losses caused due to low charges from students of free seats. Notably upper limit of fees to be charged from students of both type of seats is again subject matter of decision by Committee specially set up for this purpose by Government of Rajasthan. committee namely, Tiwari Committee was set up for this purpose by State Government, which gave its detailed report about admissions and fees structure for technical courses. Such type of committee is working effectively every year for deciding upper limit of fees for both types of seats, maximum amount of fees, number of payment seats to be which educational institution is permitted for given year. Thus, it is not at all free hand given to Institutions to charge, whatever fee they wanted. In other words firstly, there is restriction on outer limit of fee and secondly, number of seats were being decided every year by such Committee. Assessing Officer however, neither applied his mind on this aspect nor rebutted. 10. appellant was charging abnormal fees in self-regulatory courses and from payment seats, is thus, totally baseless and without keeping in view background, purpose and object, with which it was being charged. Assessing Officer has lost sight of restrictions placed by Government in this regard. It was submitted that from copies of all those letters received from Government alter due consideration of report of said Committee etc. permitting appellant to charge fees, as stated above, were duly filed before Assessing Officer. However, regrettably Assessing Officer totally ignored even making mention of same. 11. There apart, allegation of diversion of fund by appellant with regard to payment of remuneration, rent to members of Parashar family and as regards providing facilities to them, ld. AR placed kly reliance towards details submission dated 18-1-2007 placed before ld. CIT(A) (copy placed at paper book pages 19-34 of assesses paper book) and it was submitted that ITAT recorded findings of facts in response to allegations made by ld. CIT(A) in assessment years 1996-1997 to 1999-2000. Similar objections/allegation are made by Assessing Officer in this year also and therefore findings in those years are very important and relevant to resolve controversies in hand. Hence k reliance was placed at Pg. 11 to. 14 Pr.16, (PB 45-48) of ITAT order (supra) wherein such various allegations, were rejected after elaborate discussion. To summarise, his submissions towards these allegations were that Smt Bharti Parashar was chair person, devoting most of her time without charging any thing and therefore she deserved Chauffer driven car and telephone. car was registered in name of samiti. As regards payment of rent, Smt. Parashar and Sanjay Parashar provided their building for running school and other activities and no rent was charged in initial period. It was only later on when there arose need for hostel for students of management courses, some rent was charged in accordance with valid agreement. rent so charged was less than market rates prevailing in area and to support contention even report of registered valuer was filed as per which, rent charged was even lesser then rates prescribed by state govt. Assessing Officer though cited examples of six other properties, but did not confront appellant and only general query was raised. advance given to Smt. Parashar and other family members was also in accordance with prevailing market practice while putting property and amount was lesser than market rate. As regard payment made to Sanjay Parashar and Bharat Parashar, it was submitted that they were highly qualified professional and payments were made in lieu of responsibilities entrusted to them, who devoted their full time as director of samiti. It was further submitted that payments so made were meagre in as much as total receipts in year 2000 to 2004 is Rs. 2196.47 lacs against which payments to members of Parashar family stood at Rs. 41.95 lacs as salary and Rs. 10.62 lacs as rent for hostel building, Which is hardly 1.91 per cent and 0.48 per cent of total receipts respectively. This year such per cent stood at merger 1,60 per cent and 0.42 per cent respectively. It is established that such payment are meager as compared to efforts made by them and hence cannot be termed as passing over of benefit to trustees. provisions of conveyance to directors was with view to increase efficiency. Moreover on loans given to Sanjay and Bharat Parashar, appellant had already charged interest @ 12 per cent p.a. and such loans have already been repaid by them long back. As to allegation of Assessing Officer that appellant has not paid remuneration to teaching staff in various colleges than what is paid by their counterparts in other Government colleges/universities. For this purpose, he has alleged that no evidence was filed by appellant showing that how many number of lecturers were as per norms prescribed by authorities. We may submit that it is not all for Assessing Officer to look into. number of lecturers, were as per norms or not or what is being paid to them, is within jurisdiction of regulatory authorities, and not for Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer has not at all brought any evidence on record nor any adverse comment, made by any of regulatory authorities, against institution, in absence of which, no adverse inference, can be drawn. Such allegation, therefore, has to be ignored altogether. Moreover, appellant was never confronted on issue, hence such allegation has to be ignored. Similar allegations were made by Assessing Officer at pg 6 para 8(iv), whereupon also similar submissions were made. 12. As regards conclusion raised by Assessing Officer at pg 6 para 8(viii) that appellant on one hand was charging abnormal fees from students and on other hand, was not making requisite payment of salary to teaching staff and this way, it was making huge profits and it existed for purposes of profits, it was argued by ld. AR Sh. Gargieya that firstly that Assessing Officer never confronted appellant on these issues and made allegations without such discussion with appellant. Secondly entire matter is to be seen in light of factual submission made here in above and it will be observed that all these allegations of Assessing Officer were totally beyond his jurisdiction and competence. He has not at all established that something wrong was found by any of regulatory authorities against appellant in absence of which no adverse inference can be drawn. He again drew our attention towards detailed written submission placed before ld. CIT(A) and charts/details mentioned therein at paper book pages 19-34. Even assuming that there was some misutilisation of funds/mismanagement by trustees, even this can not disentitle assessee from exemption under section 10(22) of Act as has been held by Honble Rajasthan High Court very categorically in case of Dy. CIT v.Cosmopolitan Education Society [2000] (JP), to effect that Assessing Officer should not normally depart from settled position in past. 13. With regard to some more allegations of Assessing Officer at pg 13 para 13(i), he submitted that Assessing Officer has proceeded on misconception of law and facts. Admittedly by not receiving any donation or grant, it was all more necessary for appellant, to charge from students requisite fees for course, within permissible limit and there is no objection by any of Regulatory Authorities on this aspect. We have already submitted that there was definite purpose behind charging such fees and same was admittedly towards development of infrastructure facilities. Various other educational colleges like Engineering and Pharmacy could not have been established for want of funds. One must also look into background. Government with definite idea & object, purportedly opened this area of education for private sector. Government, who is already lacking funds and sincere management of Education, it was thought that private sector can do this job very well. Once very intention of Government, is to promote education in private sector such action on part of Income- tax Department, if permitted, would seriously discourage and avowed object of Government can never be achieved. He further submitted that quantum and hugeness of profit is not at all relevant material, hence interpretation put by Assessing Officer that there has to be reasonable profit only and then only institution can be said to be not existing solely for purposes of profit, is totally misconception of law on his part. amount of surplus is not at all material for purposes of granting approval of exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of Act, as held in many judicial pronouncement. He placed k reliance upon decisions in cases of Aditnar Educational Institution (supra), Cosmopolitan Education Society (supra) by ITAT Jaipur which was affirmed by Honble Raj. High Court in Cosmopolitan Education Society case (supra), Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan State Text Book Board [2000] 244 ITR 667 (Raj.), CIT v. Lagan Kala Upavan [2003] 259 ITR 489 (Delhi), Governing Body of Rangaray Medical College v. ITO [1979] (AP). 14. ld. DR on other hand, kly relied upon orders of authorities below and contended that assessee existed for profits only in view of various allegation of Assessing Officer. He also alleged that assessee was neither having any registration under section 12AA nor its application under section 10(23C)(vi) was approved till completion fe assessment or even upto order of ld. CIT(A). However he fairly accepted that prescribed authority has now granted approval which was effective even for year under consideration. 15. We have carefully considered arguments put by parties, gone through findings recorded by authorities below and have also perused t h e material available on record. present case relate to educational institution and since receipts are admittedly more than Rs. 1 crore, provisions contained under section 10(23C)(vi) are relevant. Firstly we refer same. provisions contained under section 10(23C)(vi) of Act are, similar and analogs to those contained under section 10(22) of Act, which has how been omitted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000 by Finance Act, 1998. For better appreciation, both provisions are reproduced hereunder in verbatim: "10. Incomes not included in total income.In computing total income of previous year of any person, any income falling within any of following clauses shall not be included. ..." Prior to its omission, clause (22) read as under: "(22) any income of university or other educational institution, existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit;" Further Clauses (22) and (22A) are now re-enacted in section 10(23C). "(23C) any income received by any person on behalf of (v)any university or other educational institution existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit, other than those mentioned in sub-clause (iiiab) or sub-clause (iiiad) and which may be approved by prescribed authority; or..." question of eligibility of exemption under these provisions has to be determined with reference to objects of assessee institution. If there results some surplus, after meeting expenditure incurred towards activities to attain objects, institution can not be denied exemption under these provisions. Also decisive or acid test is whether on over all view of matter, object is to make profit or otherwise should be seen as decked in many judicial pronouncements. Honble SC in Aditnar Educational Institution case (supra). "The language of section 10(22) of Act is plain and clear and availability of exemption should be evaluated each year to find out whether institution existed during relevant year solely for educational purposes and not for purpose of profit. After meeting expenditure, if any surplus results incidentally from activity lawfully carried on by educational institution, it will not cease to be one existing solely for educational purposes, since object is not one to make profit. decisive or acid test is whether, on overall view of matter, object is to make profit. In evaluating or appreciating above, one should also bear in mind distinction/difference between corpus, object and powers of concerned entity." 16. bare perusal of objects stated in byelaws, as mentioned at pg 3 of assessment order, Appellant samiti was established for advancement of education. sole purpose of samiti was imparting education through running of various institutions/colleges. main object of appellant, thus was imparting education only. authorities below have not found anything wrong or contrary to this from byelaws of samiti. Hence it is admitted that object of Appellant samiti is to impart education and is not to make profits. In substance and reality, sole purpose for which Appellant samiti has come in to existence is to impart education at level of colleges and hence, such institution must have been regarded as "educational institution" coining within section 10(23C)(vi). It cannot be denied that substantial part of receipts were utilized towards attainment of main object of Appellant samiti. For ready reference, chart submitted by appellant is reproduced hereunder: S.No. Assessment 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 Year 1. Total 18,071,017 20,792,018 26,522,724 52,105,093 50,264,125 69,963,040 88414190 Receipts 2. Addition in - - 6223400 - 11,667,639 1766087 - bank loan 3. Total 18,071,017 20792018 32,746,124 52105093 61,931,764 71729127 88414190 Receipts 4. Total 7587863 7614853 13,873,494 20292994 22356390 29961763 38849382 expenditure without Depreciation 5. Investment 17615142 27678296 20436537 45807371 23955232 in fixed Assets 6. Fixed 2000,000 - 3000,000 2500,000 2000000 Deposits as per AICTE norms 7. Total 33488636 47,971,290 45,792,927 78,269,134 64804014 Application u/s 10(23) bare perusal of above chart (PB1) reveal that surplus remaining after meeting revenue expenditures, has again been utilised in additions to fixed assets. appellant applied Rs. 45.80 crore as against total; receipts of Rs. 50.26 crores and invested Rs. 20.44 crores in fixed assets. Loans of Rs. 1.17 crores were taken. appellant thus, has already applied more than 85 per cent of total receipts of this year. However, authorities below have not disputed that funds were otherwise used to great extent in development of infrastructure i.e., addition to fixed assets etc. in this year, as also in other years as well. capital fund increased from Rs. 4.09 lacs (as on 31-3-2001) to Rs. 884.54 lacs (as on 31-3-2003) i.e 221 times. Similarly investment rose from Rs. 5.03 lacs in 1991 to Rs. 1028.29 lacs as on 31-3-2004. Thus, figures speak that receipts were largely invested in infrastructure development and it cannot be said that same, were siphoned off. Utilization of funds, this way can never be Objectionable. Huge expenditure have been incurred by Appellant samiti, on running and managing various Degree Courses of various subjects. Moreover appellant has also discharged its obligation towards society in field of education. In Raj Rajasthan State Text Book Boards case (supra) it was held that where ld. CIT(A) as well as Tribunal found that even if surplus remains with assessee, is utilized only for purpose of education, it rightly allowed exemption under section 10(22). 17. It is also pertinent to mention here that Honble Apex Court in TMA Pai Foundation case (relied upon by Assessing Officer also) has observed that unaided private institutions are bound to generate funds for betterment and growth of institutions and for which there should be continuous surpluses for furtherance of education, therefore, it is not only permissible but important requirement to put oxygen to run institutions of such strength. Further, in Aditinar Education Institutions (supra) and other cases, Honble Courts have observed that when surplus is utilised for educational purpose, i.e., infrastructure development, it cannot be said that institution was having object to make profit and to be more specific, Honble Apex court has observed time and again that surpluses used for management and betterment of institutions cannot be termed as profit. Detailed arguments were made by ld. AR to meet with allegation of Assessing Officer of charging of high school fees to effect that there was direct control by various government agencies including Tiwari Committee nominated by state Government. Otherwise also fees were charged strictly in accordance with guidelines provided by them. We find that ld. Assessing Officer failed to establish that fees charged by appellant were beyond limits and guidelines provided by Government agencies and also failed to bring any material to show that AICTE or any other concerned Government agency has made any adverse remark on this aspect. Similarly we agree with contention of ld. AR that Assessing Officer failed to establish that payment of no commensurating salaries has been made to teaching staff and that number of lectures were not in accordance with norms though desired by regulating authorities. Another important aspect is that ITAT has already quashed order passed by CIT(Adm.) under section 263 for assessment year 1996-97 to 1999-00 vide their order 14-6-2004 copy of which is placed at paper book pages 35-50, wherein appellant samiti has been held to be educational institution, solely existing for education and not for purpose of profit and hence was entitled to exemption under section 10(22) of Act. Hence there is no reason for Assessing Officer to take departure from those findings. It can not be disputed nor it is dispute between parties that facts and circumstances of case are not similar to earlier years and manner and method of carrying out educational activities, accounting etc are same. Honble Supreme Court of India has also held that facts of each year should be examined separately and therefore, after examining facts of this year we find that facts of present case are similar to those in earlier years. ITAT order, is therefore fully applicable on facts of present case. In Lagan Kala Upvan case (supra) it was held, while holding assessee is entitled to exemption under section 10(22), ld. CIT(A) recorded categorical finding that assessee has been running educational institution for past 25 years without any profit motives, which was endorsed by Tribunal also. eligibility of exemption under section 10(22) has to be determined with reference to objects of assessee. exemption cannot be denied merely because assessee derives some surplus or there is violation of condition stipulated in section 11 or 13. 18. With regard to various allegation, details submissions were made b y ld. AR not only before us, as mentioned above but also before authorities below. However all those allegations are nothing more then suspicion and we do not find any substance therein, once we find that basic fact is that appellant samiti solely existed for education. 19. We have carefully considered allegations of Assessing Officer of misutlisation of fund by making payments towards rent, salary etc to members of Parashar family, however found sufficient force in contention of ld. AR that such allegations are mere suspicion for reasons discussed hereunder. salary paid to various members of Parashar family were less than pay scale of Government employees. claim that provision for car and telephone facility to Mrs. Parashar is not undesirable as she is chair person of samiti, devotes full time to samiti and does not charge any remuneration for work done for samiti. Moreover, these payments have not to be looked in isolation but in conjunction with total receipts of appellant. On gross receipt Rs. 2196.47 lacs in all four years as against which total such payments to members of Parashar family were of Rs. 41.95 lacs as salary and Rs. 10.62 lacs towards rent which were only 1.91 per cent and 0,48 per cent and this year it amounted to meagre 1.60 per cent and 0.42 per cent respectively. This is beyond comprehension as to how such meagre payments can be classified as diversions of funds particularly when premises have factually been used by assessee for which reasonable rents were paid and also services of family members were taken for which salary was paid to them inconsideration of work done by them. On loans, interest as per market rate were already charged. directors devoted there full time to appellant samiti. ld. DR could not deny these facts. Under facts and circumstances of case, we do not find that salary and rent paid to persons referred to in section 13(3) is excessive and it cannot be said to be deemed application for benefit of such persons. 20. We also concur with alternative submission that even if there was some misutilisation of funds/mismanagement by trustees, or minor discrepancies are there, even this can not disentitle assessee from exemption under section 10(22) (or) section 10(23C)(vi) or section 11 & 12 being pari materia of Act as has been held by Honble Rajasthan High Court in case of Cosmopolitan Education Society (supra) very categorily. For ready reference, Head note is being reproduced here verbatim: "Held, dismissing appeal, that Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had recorded finding of fact, that it was not known that any part of income of assessee-samiti was misutilised. For so saying, appellate authority referred to balance-sheet. appellate authority further noticed that assessee-samiti was registered samiti under Rajasthan Societies Act and that it was also recognised by CBSE. He observed that if there was any misutilisation or mismanagement, action could be taken against members of samiti, but from records and facts, it was not possible to say that any amount of funds of samiti was not utilised for educational purposes. Tribunal concurred with this finding of fact. No substantial of law arose from its order." decision cited by Assessing Officer at pg 15 in case of All India Personality Enhancement & Cultural Cont. for Scholar v. Dy. CIT [2004] (Delhi) is found distinguishable from facts of present case itself kly support present case on by holding that "there may also be situation where expense may not be met by fees or grants/donations received. In such situations, management may decide to carry on activity to earn profits to meet such expenses." Hence it can be said that appellant did not exist solely for education. We also find that prescribed authority has already granted exemption originally on dated 7-2-2007 for assessment year 1999-00 to 2001-02, copy of which is placed at assessees paper book pages 1 & 2 and vide another order dated 16-3- 2007 (copy placed at paper book pages 4 & 5 of assessee), wherein prescribed authority has granted objection for all time to come i.e. such exemption is equally applicable for assessment year 2003-04, which is under consideration. Thus, appellant has fulfilled conditions laid under section 10(23C)(vi) to effect that appellant exists solely for education and not for purpose of profit as concluded by us hereinabove and prescribed authority has also granted exemption as stated above. We therefore reverse and set aside orders of authorities below and hold that surplus shown by appellant in its income & expenditure a/c is exempt from tax under section 10(23C)(vi) of Act for subjected year and Assessing Officer erred in taxing same as income from business. Thus Ground No. 2.1 and 2.2 of appellant are allowed. 21. In Ground No. 3, assessee is aggrieved that ld, CIT(A) has erred in confirming charging of interest under section 234B & 234D and withdrawing interest under section 244A of Act which may be deleted in full. 22. This ground of assessee is mandatory and consequential in nature. 23. In result, appeal of assessee in ITA No. 146/JP/07 is allowed. order is pronounced in open court on 25-1-2008. *** Arvind Bhartiya Vidhyalya Samiti v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax