HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 443 / 2011 Commissioner Of Income Tax Jai ----Appellant Versus M/S India Public School Samiti ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Ms. Mahi Yadav on behalf of Mr. Sameer Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Order 21/04/2017 1. delay in filing appeal is condoned. application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is allowed. Defects are waived. 2. In view of common judgment dated 25.01.2012 passed by this court in CIT, Jaipur III vs. M/s. Indian Public School Samiti & Ors. ( D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 423/2011), wherein it has been held as under:- In view of findings recorded by ITAT it is apparent that merely because there was certain surplus and advances in hand, it was not enough to deny exemption under Section 10(23C) (iiad) of Income Tax Act as laid down by Apex Court in Aditanar Education Institution (supra) in which Apex Court has laid down that exemption cannot be denied merely because there is surplus. If after making expenditure, any surplus results incidentally, from activity lawfully carried on by educational institution which will not cease to one existing solely for educational purpose, since object is not one to make profit. It has also been laid (2 of 2) [ITA-443/2011] down in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajasthan State Text Book Board (supra) that merely because certain surplus is left it is not enough to hold that societies were not for educational purposes. Surplus may be incidental for limit for construction of school building and it could not be said that societies were existing for earning Profit. Considering profit and surplus of institution in two case it could not be said that it was profit venture. It cannot be said that societies were running for profit venture and it was nowhere satisfactorily proved that fund was utilized by secretary for personal purposes. In view of aforesaid discussion, we are of opinion that question of advances and surplus has been adequately gone into by CIT(A) as well as ITAT in excessive details. Material on record has been considered and reasons employed by Assessing Officer have been gone into. Findings of fact recorded by CIT(A) affirmed by ITAT are not having any illegality or perversity; they are not against statutory prerogatives contained in provisions of Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of Income Tax Act. Consequently, we find that no substantial questions of law are involved in appeals. 3. In view of above, present appeal is also dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. B. M. Gandhi/21 Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur v. India Public School Samiti