आयकर अपील(cid:9)य अ(cid:10)धकरण, ‘ए’ (cid:14)यायपीठ, चे(cid:14)नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI (cid:21)ी एबी ट(cid:9) वकti, (cid:14)या(cid:26)यक सद(cid:29)य एव ं (cid:21)ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद(cid:29)य के सम$

BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:1480/Chny/2025 (cid:26)नधा%रण वष % / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Neuro Update Chennai, ITO, No.45, 2^nd Floor, Pantheon Road, vs. Exemption Ward -1, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Chennai.

[PAN:AAATN-5438-K]

(अपीलाथ’/Appellant) (()यथ’/Respondent)

अपीलाथ’ क* ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. G. Sitharaman, CA &

Shri. Harshal P Shah, CA ()यथ’ क* ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl. C.I.T.

सुनवाई क* तार(cid:9)ख/Date of Hearing : 05.08.2025 घोषणा क* तार(cid:9)ख/Date of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM :

This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-17, dated 08.05.2025. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: -

1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)") erred both in law and on facts in upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer ("AO") amounting to ₹61,15,273/-, being (a) excess of income over expenditure; (b) corpus donation received; and (c) donations made to other charitable trusts, by treating them as taxable under the head "Income from Other Sources".

2. The CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the activities of the Appellant were inherently educational in nature. The seminars and conferences conducted were aimed at disseminating knowledge on the latest advancements in medical treatment and served as Continuing Education Programmes (CEP) for professionals in the medical fraternity.

3. The CIT(A) failed to understand that the activities of the Appellant fall squarely within the scope of "education" as defined under Section 2(15) of the Act, which is an independent limb of the definition of "charitable purpose". However, the CIT(A) erroneously classified the Appellant's activities under "advancement of any other object of general public utility” only with the intent to attract the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act, thereby unjustly denying the exemption otherwise available under Section 11 of the Act.

4. Without prejudice, even if the activities of the Appellant were to be considered as falling under the limb of "advancement of any other object of general public utility," the CIT(A) has erred in invoking the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act by incorrectly stating that the fees collected by the Appellant exceeded 20% of the gross receipts. In fact, the fees received by the Appellant amounted to only ₹32,28,683/-, which is well within the permissible limit of 20% of the gross receipts of ₹2,55,41,107/-. Therefore, the conditions for applying the restrictive proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act are not satisfied, and the exemption under Section 11 of the Act ought not to have been denied.

5. The CIT(A) failed to adjudicate upon all the specific grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant, particularly those demonstrating that the Appellant's activities fall within the meaning of "charitable purpose" (more specifically educational) as defined under Section 2(15) of the Act. This failure constitutes a non-speaking order and a denial of proper appellate consideration.

6. The CIT(A) failed to take note of the fact that the delegate fees of the Appellant were used solely for defraying the costs of conducting educational conferences, which were open to the public and not for profit.

7. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that there are no prohibitions or illegality for a charitable trust to receive sponsorship fee and delegate fee to conduct conferences.

8. The CIT(A) was oblivious to the fact that the registration under section 12AA of the Act to the Appellant was granted by the Commissione