Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6.6.4 Further allegation of Ld. CIT(DR) remained that the appellant has applied minimum amount of income for charitable purpose and diverted substantial amount to its sister concern i.e. Patanjali Yogpeeth Trust with the intention of retaining funds within its own control. It was alleged by her that the appellant was charging exhorbitant rates for accommodation fee in the name of participation fee. In alleging so the Ld. CIT(DR) has placed reliance on the statement of one Shri Balwant Singh Minnas, wherein he has alleged to have paid amount of Rs. 49,000/- as participation fee for the yoga shivir purportedly conducted by the appellant in the assessment year under consideration. The Ld. CIT(DR) has further alleged that appellant has collected a sum of Rs. 68.45 lacs under this head during the year. She alleged further that the assessee has charged Rs. 290.79 lacs from patients during the assessment year through medical hospital which was in addition to the price of medicine charged from patients. She alleged that the appellant was unable to produce during the appellate proceedings any documentary evidence to support the charitable activities in the form of medical relief in the hospital run by the appellant. She alleged that the appellant was unable to produce the medical practicitioner during the assessment proceedings. The rejoinder of the Ld. AR remained that there is no legal impediments in one charitable trust giving donation to inter charitable trust. It was submitted that it is a well settled position that when a charitable donation amount out of its current income is donated to inter charitable trust, the same constitute application of income u/s 11(1)(9) of the Act. A copy of certificate of registration of the donee trust u/s 12A of the Act has been placed at page 856 of the supplementary paper book -(III). The CBDT instruction No. 1132 dated 5.1.1978, extract of which has been made available at page No. 857 of the supplementary paper book-Ill has made it clear that payment of a sum by one charitable trust to another for utilization by the donee trust towards its charitable objects is proper application of income for charitable purpose in the hands of the donee trust and the donor trust will not loose exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act 1961. We thus do not find substance in the contention of the Ld. CIT(DR) that the-appellant has donated an amount to the donee trust to deviate from its objectives. Since it is not the case of the department that Patanjali Yog Trust, the donee has not applied such sums for charitable purposes, there is no substance in the allegation that the appellant has deviated the funds.

** ** "(Emphasis supplied) Therefore, the aforesaid proviso does net apply to a trust/institution engaged in the charitable object of providing relief to the poor, imparting education and providing medical relief.

The vision with which the applicant trust has been set up and which is being followed over the years are as under:--

'- To make a disease free world through a scientific approach to Yoga and Ayurved and to fulfil the resolution of making a new world free from disease and medicine;

6.7.5 We have also gone through the decisions relied upon by the Ld. CIT(DR) and find that the facts of those cases are distinguishable from the case of the assesee, hence these are not helpful to the revenue. In the case of Samajbadi Society (supra) the assessee was engaged in printing and publishing newspapers and periodicals on commercial lines and it claimed exemption on the ground that it was engaged in the charitable activity of "imparting education". The Tribunal by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sole Trustee, Lok Shikshana Trust (supra) held that the activities undertaken by the appellant were in the nature .of "general pubic utility" as defined u/s 2(15) of the Act and since there was no itota of evidence to substantiate the charitable activities undertaken by the assessee no exemption was granted in the given assessment year. In the case of Aurolab Trust (supra) assessee engaged in the singular activity of manufacturing and trading in ophthalimic and cardiovascular products and accessories, had not taken any charitable activity as provided in the trust deed. Even the sale price of the products sold by the assessee was higher than those available in the market. Taking into account these aspects the Tribunal held that since there was no element of chaity involved in the activities undertaken by the appellant the assessee was not entitled to claim exemption u/s 11/12 of the Act. In the case of ICAI Accounting Research Foundation (supra) the assessee was pre-dominantly engaged in undertaking R&D activities on behalf of Government and other institution and providing consultancy services. In view of the primary activity undertaken by the assessee it was held to be in the nature of providing 'general public utility' as defined u/s 2(15) of the Act. However the case was ultimately decided in favour of the assesee and exemption was granted u/s 10(23C)(iv) of the Act. In the case of Queen's Educational Society, (supra) decision was rendered in the context of allowability of exemption u/s 10(23C) of the Act on the. facts of the case before the Hon'ble High Court. In this case profits of the assessee was considered without taking into consideration the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee for charitable purposes. This decision was subsequently been dissented from in several decisions including decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases of Pinegrove International Charitable Trust v. UOI [2010] 327 ITR 73/188 Taxman 402 (Punj. & Har.) and CIT v. Gaur Brahmin Vidya Pracharini Sabhb [2011] 203 Taxman 226/115 taxmann.com 250 (Punj. & Har.); Maa Saraswati Educational Trust v. UOI [2010] 194 taxman 84 (H.P) ; DIT (Exemption) v. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust ITA(L) No. 2990/2009 (Bom) etc. in the case of Sanjeevamma Hanumantha Gowda Charitable (supra) the predominant activity undertaken by the assessee was letting out of marriage halls on purely commercial basis and not in furtherance of the charitable objectivities. Further the assessee had not undertaken any charitable activity in pursuance of the charitable objects provided in the trust deed. The assessee was therefore denied registration u/s 12A of the Act. In the case of Daulat Ram Public Trust (supra) there was no dominant charitable objective in the trust deed which the ancillary objects sub served. It was also observed that no amount was utilized for charitable purposes and the assessee was predominantly engaged in undertaking commercial activities for the purpose of generating profits. In the case of Jacob Thasildar (supra) decision was given in the context of the Kerala Building Tax Act 1975 wherein the scheme of that Act is completely different from the applicable provisions of the Income Tax Act. In the case of Jodhpur Chartered Accountants Society (supra) the assesee was engaged in organizing conference, seminars and workshops which was held to be in the nature of "general public utility" entitled to exemption u/s 11/12 of the Act. We thus find that these decisions relied upon by the Ld. CIT(DR) do not advance the case of the revenue and hence not helpful to the revenue.

6.7.9 Thus we find that there is no bar in the charitable trust/institutioncarrying on business provided the conditions prescribed in section 11(4)/11(4A) of the Act are satisfied. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Krishna Warriers (supra) has been pleased to hold with reference to income tax Act 1922 that if the trust carried on business and the business itself is held in trust and the income from such business is applied or accumulated for application for the charitable or religious purpose of the trust, the conditions prescribed in section 4(3)(i) and fulfilled and the income is exempt from taxation. In that case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court business of making and selling ayurvedic medicines was settled and held in trust and 60% of income from such business was applied for charitable purpose. The AO denied exemption on the ground that part of the income from business was not applied for charitable purposes, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where business is held for charitable purposes the conditions prescribed in proviso (b) to section 4(3) (i) of the Income Tax Act is not applicable and the assessee was held to be eligible for exemption. The decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Hamdard Dawakhana (Waqf) (supra) though rendered in the context of the pre amended law i.e. before insertion of section 11(4A) in the 1961 Act. But the Hon'ble Court held that it was immaterial how money which was obtained by running of an activity for profit did not make the objective non charitable. If that money was used for charitable purpose and not for the carrying on any business at a profit, then the object of the trust was charitable notwithstanding the source of the income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court again in the case of Thanthi Trust (supra) held that the trust was entitled to exemption when the business of the trust was incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the trust, namely the objectives of education and relief to the poor. Their lordships observed that after amendment of section 11(4A) in 1992, all that is required for the business income of the trust or institution to be exempt from tax is that the business should be incidental to the attainment of the objects of the trust or institution. The Hon'ble Court further held that if business whose income is utilized by the trust or the institution for the purposes of achieving its objectives is a business which is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the trust or institution. Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the above cited decisions we come to the conclusion that the authorities below have failed to appreciate that incomes from business undertaken by the appellant fulfills the aforesaid conditions in as much as