Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Provided that in computing the period of six months, any time taken by the applicant in not complying with the directions of the Commissioner under sub-rule (3) shall be excluded."

7. Now a scrutiny of relevant case laws on the controversy involved in the present case is considered expedient at this stage. From the side of the assessee-petitioner, following case laws are relied upon which are noticed with relevant extract from the same as below :--

8. In Addl.CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers' Association [1980] 121 ITR 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that where the main or primary objects are distributive, each and every objects must be charitable in order that the trust or institution may be upheld as a valid charity. But if primary and dominant purpose of the trust is charitable, another object which by itself may not be charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust or institution from being a valid charity. It was observed that the primary and dominant purpose in the present case was promotion of commerce and trade in art silk etc., was an object of public utility not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit within the meaning of section 2(15); and that the assessee was entitled to exemption.

9. In CIT v. K.H. Kusumgar [1988] 169 ITR 370, the Bombay High Court observed that where the object of a charitable trust was, inter alia, imparting of education and encouragement and promotion of the study and practice of the Shewatamber Jain Murtipujak Assessment Year: 2016-17 Bhuvaneshwari Kali Takuranir Seva Samity religion amongst students of ashrams, boarding-houses, gurukuls, vidyalayas, pathshalas and shravikushramas and also amongst all persons without distinction of sex, caste, creed, place or religion, a gift of immovable property made to such charitable trust could not be said to be for a purpose the whole or substantially the whole of which was of a religious nature and the gift would be entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(v) of the Gift Tax Act.

30. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and given my thoughtful consideration to the facts of the present case and the case laws cited at the Bar.

31. This Court is of the considered opinion that mere one contribution by the charitable trust to another trust which carried out repair and renovation of Lord Vishnu's temple does not disentitle the petitioner-trust from renewal of its exemption certificate under section 80G of the Act. 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 Income-tax Department cannot reject the renewal of the Trust as Charitable Trust under section 80G of the Act merely because one particular expenditure is for an activity which may be termed as spending for a particular religion. In the present case 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 prasticing 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 article 25 of the Constitution of India. 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 and that too by way of contribution to another trust. A perusal of the trust deed of the petitioner produced on record shows that objective of the trust was clearly charitable and was not for any particular religion even wholly or substantially. Nothing has been pointed out in the impugned order that the petitioner-trust has been constantly spending money for a particular religion. One should discern and imbibe with great respects the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Jagannath Jew's case (supra).

"To reiterate, Explanation3 does not require the ascertainment of whether the whole or substantially the whole of the institution or fund's charitable purpose is of religious nature. If it did, it would read differently. It requires the ascertainment of whether there is one purpose within the institution or fund's overall charitable purpose which is wholly, or substantially wholly, of a religious nature. There is little doubt that clause 2(h) of the trust deed which permits the trustees to support prayer halls and places of worship sets out a purpose the whole or substantially the whole of which is of religious nature, and this has not been seriously disputed. Therefore, in our view, the trust and the donation by the assessee to it fall outside the scope of section 80G." (p. 582) The aforesaid case is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case as there is no clause in the trust deed in the present case which indicates that income of the petitioner-trust was to be applied wholly or substantially for any particular religion. Therefore, the said case has been clearly wrongly applied by the learned CIT(A) in the present case. In Sri Marudhar Kesari Sthanakwasi Jain Yadgar Samiti Trust's case (supra) also relied upon by the learned Counsel for the revenue, the facts of the case were distinguishable in the said case. Thus, the judgments cited and relied upon by the learned Counsel for the revenue are distinguishable on facts and do not support the case of the respondents. Since the law in the case of Upper Ganges Sugar Mills (supra) was laid down while dealing the case of deduction under section 80G of the Act in the hands of donor so also in the case of Sri Marudhar Kesari Sthanakwasi Jain Yadgar Samiti Trust (supra) by this Court, those judgments do not advance cause of the revenue. On the other hand, the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner fully support the case of the petitioner when the Courts have consistently held that it is the dominant object of the trust which is important and contribution and expenditure incurred by the petitioner-trust has to be viewed in light of the objects with which charitable trust in question was constituted.