IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “F” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &

SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16]

DCIT(E) vs Ritnand Balved Education Circle-2(1) Foundation, E-27, Defence Colony New Delhi New Delhi-110024 PAN-AAATR7314Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Ms. Anu Krishna Agarwal, CIT DR Respondent by Shri Ved Jain, Adv. &

Ms. Uma Upadhyay, CA Date of Hearing 18.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement 12.03.2025 ORDER PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM :

The captioned appeals arise from the respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“CIT(A)”] dated 14.11.2023 & 16.11.2023 passed under s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] emanating from respective assessment orders dated 29.12.2016 & 19.12.2017 passed under s. 143(3) of the Act passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively.

2. The issued involved in captioned appeals are similar and therefore, both the captioned appeals are disposed off by this common order.

ITA No.141/Del/2024 [AY 2014-15]

3. The Grounds of Appeal raised by the Revenue read as under:-

1. “Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee as discussed below.

2. Whether, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the whole addition amounting to Rs. 10,19,97,202/-ignoring the fact that the services rendered by the assessee to corporate houses were not in the nature of any education or training and was not incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the trust and clearly falls in the ambit of section 11 (4A) of the Act and should be taxed as income from business and profession.

3. Whether, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee stating that the assessment order passed by the AO is in violation of principle of consistency on the basis that for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14, the AO had not doubted the training provided to corporate houses and duly considered the same within the definition of education for the purposes of section 11(4A) and 2(15) of the Act, disregarding the very fact that every assessment is a fresh proceeding and principle of consistency does not summarily apply to an order/ addition which is based on substantiated facts and reasons.

4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in assuming that the activity of training would fall within the category of education ignoring the facts of the case considering various case-laws in favour of the revenue such as Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 234, decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mehta Charitable Prajnalay Trust [2012] 28 taxmann.com 73 (Delhi), and Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in the case of Delhi Music Society, which was also referred by the AO in detail in the assessment order.

5. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified intaking a view that the services rendered by the assessee are within the objects of the trust ignoring the fact that none of the objects included imparting professional services to the commercial organizations and that in view of this, the assessee had violated the provisions of the Trust Deed itself.

6. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in assuming that the training provided by the assessee to corporate houses is in the nature of "educational" in accordance with its objects ignoring the fact that the assessee had itself allowed the corporates to deduct the TDS u/s 194] or 1940 assuming that it was paying for professional services rendered by the assessee and at the same time, the assessee too itself had charged service tax on the receipts, which clearly points to the fact that assessee itself was treating the above payment as some kind of commercial services being provided.”

4. Briefly stated, the assessee is a Society registered under S