JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The Revenue has preferred five appeals claiming that a question of law arises out of an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) to the effect that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short CIT) erred in allowing the benefit of Section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the Respondent/assessed.
2. The facts as they appear from the order of the Tribunal clearly show that the assessed is running several schools (about 16 in number) employing more than one thousand teachers and nuns and imparting education to several thousand students. There is no doubt, as held by the authorities under the Act, that the assessed was carrying on charitable activities but the question was whether it was existing solely for educational purposes.
3. According to the Assessing Officer, the fact that the assessed was also running a dispensary, an orphanage and a church shows that the assessed was not carrying out activities only for educational purposes. The CIT as well as the Tribunal disagreed with the Assessing Officer and we think rightly so.
4. The nuns who were teaching in the schools run by the assessed were donating their entire salary back to the assessed and the assessed in turn looked after their maintenance. Provision of medical facilities for the benefit of the nuns and the students and running a church was found to be incidental to the principal activity of running an educational institution. Similarly, the orphanage being run by the assessed catered to abandoned children who were brought up and given education. The orphanage was not a recognized one and no adoption work was being carried on in the orphanage.
5. On these facts the Tribunal concluded that the assessed primarily carried on educational activities and while doing so the activity of running a dispensary for the benefit of students and teachers, running a church for the benefits of nuns and running an orphanage for the benefit of abandoned children did not detract from the educational activities being carried out by the assessed. On this basis it was held that the assessed was entitled to the benefit of Section 10(22) of the Act.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that no fault can be found in the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal. There is no dispute that the principal activity of the assessed was to run educational institutions. While running an educational institution, it cannot be said that a dispensary is not necesssary for the children and teachers of the schools. Similarly a church would be required for the nuns who donated their entire salary back to the assessed so that their maintenance, both temporal and spiritual, could be looked after by the assessed. Running an orphanage for abandoned children with the intention of enabling them to grow up and obtain education cannot be said, in any manner, to be a ground for holding that the assessed did not exist solely for educational purposes. There is no allegation that the assessed carried on its activities for purposes of profit or for any other reason.
7. On these facts of the case, we find that no substantial question of law has arisen for our consideration.
8. Dismissed.