Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Kund Kund Shikshan Kendra Trust, Jaipur vs Cit(Exemptions), Jaipur on 11 January, 2017
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM
vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 905/JP/2016
Kund Kund Shikshan Kendra Trust,
A-709D, Indra Vihar,
Kota.
cuke
Vs.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)
Jaipur.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AAATK 9549 C
vihykFkhZ@Appellant
izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri H.V. Gurjar (CIT)
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 03.01.2017.
?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 11/01/2017.
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM.
The appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (Exemptions), Jaipur dated 16.09.2016. The only effective ground raised by the assessee in the appeal is as under :-
" The learned Commissioner of Income Tax has erred on facts and in law in refusing the registration to the assessee u/s 12AA of Income Tax Act, 1961 by holding that the objects of the trust are for the benefit of particular religious community and therefore provisions of section 13(1)(b) are attracted and it cannot be held as a charitable trust. "
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee had applied for registration under section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). However, the said application was rejected by the CIT (Exemptions) on the ground that the objects of the society are for the benefit of a particular religious community. Aggrieved by this, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal.
3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has reiterated the submissions as made in the written brief. The submissions of the assessee are reproduced as under :-
"For grant of registration u/s 12AA, the Ld. CIT(E), as per sub-section (1) of this section is required to satisfy himself about the objectives of the trust and the genuineness of its activities. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(E) has incorrectly referred to section 12AA(4) inserted w.e.f. 01.10.2014 which provides for cancellation of the registration if it is subsequently noticed that activities of the trust are carried out in the manner that provision of sec.11 and 12 do not apply due to operation of sec. 13(1). The proviso to this section further provides that registration shall not be cancelled if there is a reasonable cause for the activities to be carried out in the said manner. Therefore, it is incorrect on part of Ld. CIT(E) to guide himself by sub-section (4) of section 12AA to refuse registration u/s 12AA(1).
It is a settled law that at the stage of grant of registration, CIT is not required to enquire whether the condition of section 11 to 13 is fulfilled or not. Condition of section 13(1)(b) do not apply to registration u/s 12AA & therefore the registration u/s 12AA refused by CIT is bad in law. Reliance in this connection is placed on following cases:-
CIT vs. Bigabass Maheshwari Sewa Samiti (2008) 14 DTR 0029 (Raj.) (HC) A reading of objects of the trust revealing that beneficiaries of the trust were society at large and not confined to any particular caste, community or even religion, the ineligibility provided in ss. 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) was not attracted. Providing for some preference, in favour of the persons belonging to a particular community was not sufficient to attract s. 13(1)(b).
St. Joseph Academy vs. DIT(Exemption) (2015) 153 ITD 669 (Hyd.) (Trib.) Assessee-society filed application seeking registration u/s 12AA from DIT(E) in prescribed form. On perusal of details furnished by assessee, DIT(E) found that one of main aims and objects of assessee society was benefit of Christian minority community in particular and others in general. Thus, assessee society was established mainly for benefit of one particular community and same therefore, could not be considered as public charitable institution. DIT(E) held that specific stipulation made in relevant rules and regulations for appointing Principal for schools and colleges, only from particular community, again was sufficient to show that assessee society was established for benefit of particular community. Assessee society was not held eligible for registration u/s.12AA. Application filed by assessee for registration was rejected. Held, if registration applied for u/s 12AA was not granted for violation of principles of S.13(1)(b), and if it was ultimately found that assessee trust actually accomplished objects only for benefit of others in general, without there being any activity undertaken for benefit of Christian minority community in particular, assessee would be wrongly deprived of any benefits, that otherwise were available u/s 11 or S.12. Wordings in S. 13, made it explicitly clear that statutory provisions became operative or relevant only at stage of assessment when AO was required to examine claim of assessee for benefits u/s 11 or S. 12 while computing total income of assessee of relevant previous year. As per Tribunal in case of Aryan Education Society V/s. CIT, so long as provisions of Ss. 11, 12 and 12A were complied with, exemption could not be denied merely because there was any violation of provisions of S. 13. Action of D.I.T(E) in refusing to grant registration to assessee trust on ground of violation of provisions of S. 13(1)(b) was not justified especially when he had not doubted either genuineness of activities of assessee trust or nature of its object being charitable. Impugned order was set aside and registration applied for by assessee trust u/s. 12AA must be granted to it Bhai Mansa Singh Ji Welfare Society vs. CIT (2016) 156 ITD 0117 (Chd.) (Trib.) The assessee society made an application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act. As per the Ld. CIT, the amended object 'to run the society for benefit of poor & general public at large to provide medical aid, education institutions, scholarships, sports, blood donation camps, other facilities & activities on the teachings of Bhai Mansa Singh Ji' was against the spirit of sec. 13(1)(b) of the Act. Thus, application for registration was rejected. It was held that the objects were not confined towards any particular sect or biradari. It has been clearly mentioned that the society had to work for the benefit of poor and general public at large and these activities are to be based in consonance with the teachings of Bhai Mansa Singh Ji. It is not a case that the charity has to be done for the followers of Bhai Mansa Singh Ji only. Further, the provisions of section 13(1)(b) of the Act can be invoked only at the time of making assessment of the entity registered under section 12AA of the Act. At the stage of granting registration under section 12AA of the Act, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax should not get carried away by the provisions of this section.
Bhagwan Mahavir Purusharth Prerna Nidhi Nyas vs. CIT (2012) 144 TTJ 379 (Jpr.)(Trib.) In this case, the object of the trust was to support students, widows, marriage of girls of weaker section of the society & to provide medical relief. CIT did not allowed registration u/s 12AA on the ground of violation of section 13(1)(b) as he noticed that trust has given scholarship to 4 students who all belong to 'Jain' Community. In these facts, it was held that section 13(1)(b) do not apply to registration u/s 12AA. If condition of section 13(1)(b) are violated, exemption u/s 11 is not be allowed but such violation did not effect registration. Further, it is not the case of revenue that student who got scholarship were not belonging to poor families. Therefore, CIT is directed to allow registration u/s 12AA to the assessee.
Kul Foundation vs. CIT (2015) 43 CCH 0115 (Pune) (Trib.) At the time of grant of registration, the powers of the CIT enshrined under section 12AA of the Act, provided that the CIT is to look into the objects of the Trust and the genuineness of its activities. Merely because, one of the objects of the Trust was for the benefit of upliftment of the Jain community as against the pre-dominant object of providing education by the Trust or the Institution, the issue arises whether the grant of registration under section 12AA of the Act could be denied to the assessee. We find no merit in the order of CIT in observing that the said benefit being provided to the Jain community would attract the provisions of section 13(1)(b) of the Act and the assessee therein would not be entitled to the claim of deduction under sections 11 and 12 of the Act and consequently, there was no merit in allowing the registration under section 12A of the Act. The allowability of the deduction under sections 11 and 12 of the Act is to be looked into by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment in the hands of the assessee at the relevant time. Whether the said deduction under sections 11 and 12 of the Act is allowable or not to the Trust or the Institution by way of non-fulfillment of the conditions laid down in section 13(1)(b) of the Act is to be considered by the Assessing Officer while completing assessment in the hands of the assessee Trust or Institution. But the said violation by the Trust or Institution on account of provisions of section 13(1)(b) of the Act, if any, are not to be considered by the CIT while granting registration under section 12A of the Act.
Aggarwal Mitra Mandal Trust vs. DIT (Exemp.) 293 ITR (AT) 259/106 ITD 531 (Del.) (Trib.) In this case, assessee applied for registration u/s 12AA. DIT refused to grant registration on the ground that a number of object clauses are for the benefit of members of Vaish caste only, thereby infringing provisions of sec. 13(1)(b). It was held that the procedure for registration laid down in s. 12AA requires the CIT to satisfy himself about the genuineness of activities and object of the trust or institution and as such, the scope of his powers is limited in this regard to make such enquiries, as he may deem fit, to satisfy himself in respect of these two aspects. The provisions of s. 13(1) are thus not directly relevant in this regard. On the other hand, the said section begins with the words "Nothing contained in s. 11 or s. 12 shall operate so as to exclude, from the total income of the previous year, of the person......." which clearly envisages operation of s. 11 or s. 12 before the provisions of s. 13 can be applied or invoked in a given case. It also shows that the said provisions can be applied or invoked only at the time of computation of total income of the previous year of the person who is claiming exemption under s. 11 or s. 12. Both these situations contemplated in s. 13 can arise only and only if registration under s. 12A is granted to the said person. If the same is not granted and the person is refused the registration under s. 12A, he would not be entitled to claim any benefit available under s. 11 or 12 and there will be no occasion to the AO to invoke or apply s. 13 in his case. This position would not only be contrary to the scheme of the Act as laid down in ss. 11, 12, 12A, 12AA and 13 but the same may also cause prejudice/hardship to the persons in certain cases. The phraseology of s. 13 makes it explicitly clear that the said provisions become operative or relevant only at the stage of assessment when the AO is required to examine the claim of the assessee for benefits under s. 11 or s. 12 while computing the total income of the assessee of the relevant previous year. The application of s. 13 thus falls within the exclusive domain of the AO and the provisions contained therein can be invoked by him while framing the assessment and not by the CIT while considering the application for registration under s. 12AA. Keeping in view the reasons given above, the action of the Director of IT (Exemptions) in refusing to grant registration to the assessee trust on the ground of violation of the provisions of s. 13(1)(b) was not justified especially when he had not doubted either the genuineness of the activities of the assessee trust or the nature of its object being charitable In view of above judgments, The Ld. CIT(E) is not correct to guide himself by Section 12AA(4) which is a power conferred on him to cancel the registration due to operation of Section 13 (1) in as much as this condition is now embedded in Section 12AA(1) which governs the procedure for registration.
Without prejudice to above, it can can be noted that the ITO has raised 4 objections fro granting the registration to the assessee but the Ld. CIT(E) after considering the reply dated 06.09.2016 (PB 24-26) where each of these objection were explained, by referring to the object clause held that it the trust for the benefit of Jain Samaj only by accepting the contention of the assessee on the other objections raised by the ITO. It is submitted that in the object clauses wherever Jain is referred, it is with reference to following the fundamental principals laid down in the Lord Mahaveer which shows the path in which a person should lead his life. Further, all the objects are not for preaching/ spreading the Jain philosophy in as much as object clauses 4, 6 & 11 are objects of general public utility. Section 13(1)(b) is applicable when the trust is created or established for the benefit of any particular religious community only. The object clause nowhere states that the beneficiaries of the trust would be restricted only to the Jain community. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT(E) that the trust is constituted for the benefit of a particular religion is erroneous. Hence, the Ld. CIT(E) be directed to grant registration to the assessee.
Reliance is placed on following cases:-
CIT vs. Dawoodi Bohara Jamat (SC) (2014) 364 ITR 0031
44. In the instant case, the Tribunal has found on facts after analysing the objects of the trust that the respondent- trust is a public religious trust and its objects are solely religious in nature and being of the opinion that Section 13(1)(b) is solely meant for charitable trust for particular community, negated the possibility of applicability of Section 13(1)(b) of the Act at the outset. The High Court has also confirmed the aforesaid view in appeal and observed that Section 13(1)(b) would only be applicable in case of income of the trust for charitable purpose established for benefit of a particular religious community. In our considered view, the said view may not be the correct interpretation of the provision.
49. In the present case, the objects of the respondent-trust are based on religious tenets under Quran according to religious faith of Islam. We have already noticed that the perusal of the objects and purposes of the respondent-trust would clearly demonstrate that the activities of the trust though both charitable and religious are not exclusively meant for a particular religious community. The objects, as explained in the preceding paragraphs, do not channel the benefits to any community if not the Dawoodi Bohra Community and thus, would not fall under the provisions of Section 13(1)(b) of the Act.
Diocese of Pune (CNI) vs. CIT (2015) 42 ITR (Trib.) 0348 (Pune) decision dated 31.03.2015 Assessee trust was created vide Deed of Trust and was registered vide Certificate of Registration issued by Asst. Charity Commissioner. Commissioner requisitioned assessee to furnish certain documents and details of charitable activities carried out by assessee trust in last three years, proof of filing of return of income. Commissioner held that objects of assessee were not charitable in strict sense of term and, instead, were religious as same were meant for benefit of specific religious community. Prime thrust of trust was to provide for benefit of particular religious community. Consequently, application moved by assessee seeking grant of registration u/s 12A was rejected. CIT held that activities carried on by trust were meant for members of specific community and thus assessee was established for benefit of specific religious community attracting provisions of S. 13(1)(b). Therefore no purpose would be served by granting registration u/s 12A. Held, perusal of objects of trust reflected that though some of objects were for benefit of Christian community in particular, others were strictly not for Christian community in particular, but both for purposes of Christian community and other public at large. Objects of trust must be looked into and those objects could be either charitable or religious in nature or both charitable or religious in nature. Apparently, one of objects of assessee trust was to provide ambulance facility to people at large. Some were admittedly relating to Christian community. However, other objects were to provide ambulance facility to people at large, to establish and administer educational institutions for needy and deserving Christian students in particular and others in general, to establish hostels, libraries, etc. for Christian boys and girls in particular and other deserving & needy boys and girls in general. Objects of assessee trust thus, reflect activities to be carried on for purpose of specific religion and also for purpose of public at large. It could not be held that assessee was meant for benefit of only specific religious community. Findings of CIT were reversed.
CIT vs. Christian Medical College (2015) 374 ITR 0017 (P&H) (HC) Assessee society was established in financial year 1949-50 and had been granted registration u/s 12A. Assessee had also been granted exemption u/s 80G and last exemption was granted upto assessment year 2011-12. Assessee filed application in Form No.10G for renewal of exemption u/s 80G on 22.12.2010. CIT(A) on perusal of memorandum of association and bye-laws found that aims and objects of society were in violation of Explanation 3 to Section 80G(5) (iii). It was held by CIT that aims and objects of assessee-Society were of religious nature and since "charitable purpose" did not include any purpose, whole or substantially whole of which was of religious nature. Exemption granted was withdrawn by CIT. ITAT allowed appeal of assessee and set aside order of CIT(A) holding that assessee was entitled to registration u/s 80G(5). Assessee was registered as charitable institution u/s 12A and registration granted there under was valid even for current assessment year. ITAT further noticed that assessee society was established and run by minority Christian community but as aim and object of assessee was to train professionals in field of medical and health care and also to provide medical facilities in their hospitals to all persons of any caste, creed, race, language, religion etc. Activities carried out by assessee were charitable in nature. Assessee was registered as charitable institution u/s 12A and said registration was being continued to be granted to assessee society even for year under consideration. Primary aim of assessee society was to train men and women as health professionals in spirit of Jesus Christ and said facility of training health professionals and medical care was to be provided without consideration of caste, race, creed, language and religion. Assessee society had been running and maintaining Christian Medical College, Christian Dental College, Christian College of Nursing and other institutions, though on ideals and principles in spirit of Christian services, but for training professionals of any caste, creed, race, religion etc. Medical care was provided by assessee society to all irrespective of their caste, creed or religion etc. Assessee society was established and run by minority Christian community, but as aim and object of assessee society was to train professionals in field of medical and health care and also to provide medical facilities in their hospital to all persons of any caste, creed, race, religion etc. Activities carried out by assessee society were charitable in nature and consequently, assessee was entitled to registration u/s 80G(5) and no merit in order of CIT(A) in this regard and reversing same, it held that renewal of registration u/s section 80G(5) was to be granted to assessee society.
Shiv Mandir Devsttan Panch Committee Sansthan vs. CIT (2012) 79 DTR 276 (Nag.)(Trib.) In this case, assessee was duly registered u/s 12A of the IT Act. It filed an application in Form No. 10G seeking approval u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the IT Act. CIT did not approved the same on the ground that one of the object clause of the trust deed i.e. worship of Lord Shiva, Hanumanji, goddess Durga & maintaining of temple, celebrating festivals like Shivratri, Hanuman Jayanti, Ganesh Uttsav, renovation & maintenance of temple is religious in nature & the expenditure incurred for the fulfillment of these objects is for the benefit of a particular religious community.
It was held that the words 'religious community' means a group of people having a common religion or faith. The word 'religion' means the belief in & worship to a superhuman controlling power, specially the personal god or gods, a particular system of faith & worship. It means that the trust should not be for the benefit of any particular group of persons having common belief in worshipping of superhuman controlling power or having common system of faith & worship. If the trust is for the benefit of any particular religious community, it would include the advancement, support or propagation of a religion & its tenets, and it could be said that a trust has violated the condition of sec. 80G(5)(iii). However, in the present case, the object of worshipping Lord Shiva, Hanumanji, goddess Durga & maintaining of temple cannot be regarded as object of advancement, support or propagation of a particular religion. They do not relate to Hindu religion as Lord Shiva, Hanumanji & goddess Durga do not represent any particular religion, they are merely regarded to be the superpower of the universe. No material or evidence has been brought on record by the Department to prove that any person coming, worshiping & maintaining the temple has to follow a particular code of ethical rules & has to carry out the prescribed rituals, observances, ceremonies & modes of worship. Anybody can come to the temple & avail of all the facilities available to the public at large. Even if the object is regarded to be religious, Hinduism is a way of life & as such not a religion. Hindus consists of number of communities having different gods who are worshipped in different manner by different rituals. Even worship of god is not essential for a person who has adopted Hinduism way of life. Hinduism holds within its fold men of divergent view & traditions who have very little in common except a vague faith in what may be called the fundamentals of Hinduism. Thus, it cannot be said that Hindu is a separate community or a separate religion. Hence, expenses incurred on worshipping Lord Shiva, Hanumanji, goddess Durga & maintenance of temple cannot be regarded to be for religious purpose. Therefore, CIT was not justified in refusing approval to assessee trust u/s 80G(5) & he is directed to grant the same.
Umaid Charitable Trust vs. UOI & Ors. 307 ITR 226 (2008) (Raj.)(HC) The line of distinction between religious purposes and charitable purposes is very thin and no water-tight compartment between the two activities can be very well established. Unless objective of the charitable trust in question itself is for spending its income for a particular religion and it is so found in the trust deed, the IT Department cannot reject the renewal of the trust as charitable trust under s. 80G merely because one particular expenditure is for an activity which may be termed as spending for a particular religion. In the present case, it was held that the repair and renovation of Lord Vishnu's temple does not necessarily mean that expenditure in question was for a particular religion only. All people who have faith in Lord Vishnu's temple belong to different sects and have faith in different religions and also visit such temple of Lord Vishnu. The Revenue has not shown that entry in the said temple was restricted to the persons of one particular community or sect practicing one religion. Hinduism is not one particular religion and different sects following Hindu philosophy do visit temples of Lord Vishnu, be that Jains, Sikhs, Brahmins, etc. There is no water-tight compartment between different castes or sects following one particular religion. Freedom of religion is guaranteed in the Constitution of India under Art. 25. Therefore, taking such a pedantic and narrow approach, it cannot be said that character of the charitable trust is lost if one particular expenditure is made for repair and renovation of Lord Vishnu's temple.
The case laws relied by the Ld. CIT(E) are not applicable on facts as in those cases the objects was to provide benefit to a particular community only. As against this, in the case of the assessee, there are various objects which are not at all related to the propagation of Jainism. In the case of Dawoodi Bohara Jamat (supra) also, it was held in Para 38 of the order that out of 6 objects, 2 objects at clause (c) and (f) were religious in nature and were restricted to specific community but other objects trace their source to holy quran and resolve to abide by the path of godliness shown by Allah and therefore it would not be sufficient to conclude that the entire purpose and activities of the trust would be purely religious in colour. Therefore, considering this decision and other decisions referred above, the cases relied by the Ld. CIT(E) are distinguishable on facts.
The ld. Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Shri Digamber Jain Mandir Godhaji in ITA No. 742/JP/2015 wherein the order of ld. CIT (Exemptions) was set aside and by following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Dawoodi Bohra Jamat, 364 ITR 31 directed the ld. CIT to grant registration to the assessee trust.
In view of above, the Ld. CIT(E) be directed to grant registration u/s 12AA of the IT Act, 1961 to the trust.
3.1. The ld. D/R has opposed the submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below.
3.2. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Digamber Jain Mandir Godhaji vs. CIT (Exemptions) in ITA No. 742/JP/2015 under the identical facts has observed as under :-
" 4.2. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The ld. CIT has rejected the application by observing as under :-
" 6. From the objects of the society, it can be seen that the Society has been created for the benefit of persons belonging to the Jain Samaj only. As the Society is working for the benefit of a particular religious community or caste i.e. Jain Samaj, it violates the provisions of section 13(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961. Under section 13(1)(b) r.w. explanation 2, a charitable organization will lose the exemption u/s11 if the income is utilized for the benefit of any particular religious community.
7. Similar issue came up before various judicial authorities. The findings are summarized below :
Agrawal Sabha - (2014) 45 taxman.com 273 (Allahabad)/(2014) 223 Taxman 353 (Allahabad) - Section 2(15) read with section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Charitable/religious purpose (Registration application) - Assessment year 2010-11 - Assessee had filed an application for registration under section 12AA - Dominant object underlying constitution of trust was for benefit of only Agrawal community - No documentary evidence had been produced to support that trust had carried out any activity of general public utility such as establishment of hospitals, dharamshalas, libraries and schools - Whether, its application under section 12AA should be dismissed - Held, Yes (Para 9) (in favour of revenue) IT. Where dominant object underlying constitution of trust was for benefit of only Agrawal community, application for registration under section 12AA should be dismissed.
Gowri Ashram - (2013) 36 taxman.com (Madras)/2013) 217 taxman 97 (Madras)/(2013) 356 ITR 328 (Madras) - Section 2(15) read with section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Charitable purpose (Objects of general public utility) - Whether where assessee society was formed with an object to provide accommodation and facilities for performance of marriages and other auspicious functions to members of a particular community, viz. Telegu BeriVysia community, it could not be regarded as society formed with a charitable purpose within meaning of section 2(15) and, therefore, its application seeking registration under section 12AA was to be rejected - Held, Yes (Para 12)(in favour of revenue) IT : Where assessee-society was formed with an object to provide accommodation and facilities for performance of marriages and other auspicious functions to members of a particular community, viz.Telugu BeriVysia Community, it could not be regarded as society formed with a charitable purpose within meaning of section 2(15).
8. In all the above judgments Hon'ble Court/Tribunal have held that if the objects of the society/association are for the benefit of a particular religious community then it is not a charitable organization. In the case of present applicant the membership is limited to persons belonging to particular community only and all the objects are for the benefit of Jain Community. This consist of a very limited and small group and not the public at large. In section 2(15) the legislature has used language of great amplitude charitable purpose which not only include the specific purpose of education medical etc. but also advancement of other objects of general public utility. The clause is intended to serve public at charitable falling under the head advancement of any other general public utility. This is totally missing in the case of applicant.
9. From the discussion made above, it is clear that the objects of the Trust/Society are not charitable in nature as they are for the benefit of the particular religious community. Therefore, the provisions of section 13(1)(b) are attracted and society cannot be held as charitable within the meaning of sec. 2(15) of the I.T. Act. Based on the material available on record, I am satisfied that the objects of the Society are not charitable and therefore registration to the society is refused."
There is no dispute with regard to the fact that as per definition of 'Charitable purpose' under section 2(15) includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief (preservation of environment (including watersheds, forests and wildlife) and reservation of monuments or places or objects or artistic or historic interest) and the advancement of any other object of General Public Utility. During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that 'Jainism' is the philosophy and preservation of symbol of such philosophy would definitely come into the embrace of the word 'Charitable'. During the course of hearing, the ld. D/R could not refute the fact that clauses 16 of the objects which provides that without any discrimination of the caste or creed to help economically poor, old, ailing, handicap, poor students and clause 17 provides for help for hospitalization of ailing persons, medicines, cold water, night shelter and Dharamshala etc. In our considered view, both these objects definitely fall under the category of Charitable purpose and cannot be construed as solely for the benefit of a particular religious community. Keeping these objects in view and respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Dawoodi Bohara Jamat, 364 ITR 31 (SC), the order of ld. CIT (Exemption) is set aside and we hereby direct the ld. CIT (Exemption) to grant registration to the assessee trust."
The facts are identical in the present case. Therefore, taking a consistent view, the ld. CIT (Exemptions) is hereby directed to grant registration under section 12AA of the IT Act, 1961 to the appellant.
4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11/01/2017. Sd/- Sd/- ¼foØe flag ;kno½ ( dqy Hkkjr) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) ( KUL BHARAT ) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Jaipur Dated:- 11/01/2017. Das/ vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf"kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Kund Kund Shikshan Kendra Trust, Kota. 2. The Respondent- The CIT (Exemptions), Jaipur. 3. The CIT, 4. The CIT (A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 905/JP/2016) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@ Assistant. Registrar 12 ITA No. 905/JP/2016 Kund Kund Shikshan Kendra Trust