Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

24. In view of the above, I am also of the considered view that the funds against which the donations stated to be corpus donations, are in fact not corpus donations, but forms part and parcel of the income of/the assessee. Since, on considering such donations, the income expended on the charitable objects of the trust fall short of 85% of its total income, the assessee has defaulted on this count also.

25. It is also seen that the Chief Trustee, Shri Narendra Baburao Surve alias Sadguru Narendra Maharaj, uses a lavish building in the trust premises as his residence and the latest amended trust deed provides for payment of exorbitant salary of Chief Trustee, also that the trust will incur expenditure for the trustees and family member of the trustees. It is also seen that, vide provisions of the latest amended trust deed, the trust has devised a system by which the Chief Trustee will only define his heir for the post of Chief Trustee and "Adhishtata", and that heir cannot take part in the management of the trust during the life of Chief Trustee. The absolute right to remove any trustee is vested in the Chief Trustee, and such disqualified/dismissed trustee's right, to appeal has also been forfeited. In this regards it is pertinent to note that the very same issue was examined by two different assessing officers for the AYs 2007-08, and 2008-09. This issue has been examined in detail vide the orders u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 30-12-2011, and order u/s 143(3) dtd. 31-12-2010, for the above AYs, respectively. Through these orders, both the AOs have come to the conclusions that there is infringement of Sec. 13(l)(c), and one of the AO has even arrived at the conclusion that the trust has become more of a "Private Trust", as the property is owned, controlled, and subject to the disposal of the Survey Family.

Now, being aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us.

4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that it is the first objection of the Ld. Commissioner that the assessee is having mixed objects partly charitable and partly religious which is apparently clear from the discussion in Para Nos. 9 to 17 and it is so clearly expressly in Para No. 19. He submits that the Ld. Commissioner has tried to impress her own thoughts on the concept of the spiritual and moral values. He argues that the religion is a matter of faith but each charitable activity may not be related to religious faith. He submits that the law is well settled on the objection of the Ld. Commissioner that no exemption can be denied merely because the objects of the trust are partly charitable and partly religious. For that proposition the Ld. Counsel relied on the decision of the ITAT, Cochin Bench Third Member in the case of The Society of Presentation Sisters Vs. ITO (2009) 30 DTR 1 (Cochin) and Calicut Islamic Cultural Society Vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Kozhikode (2009) 28 SOT 148 (Cochin). He further submits that in respect of giving benefit to the donations more particularly whether the donations are the part of the corpus of the assessee trust or revenue in nature, the objection of the Ld. CIT is totally contrary to the facts and evidences on the record. He submits that for arriving to this conclusion more particularly in Para No. 24, only general observations are made but there is no finding supported by the proper reasoning. The Ld. Commissioner tried to make out a case that the assessee has not applied 85% of its surplus income on the charitable object and for making out said case, Ld. Commissioner discarded all the evidence on record. He submits that the assessee has been regularly assessed for years together by the tax authorities. He submits that the observation of the Ld. Commissioner on the amendments to the trust deed are totally misplaced. He referred to the Compilation more particularly the chart showing the different amendments to the trust deed and submits that there is no change in the powers of the Chief trustee as the same powers were there in the earlier trust deed also. He submits that Ld. CIT has noted that the details and documents were not filed by the assessee but said observation is not correct. The assessee was given very short time as the notice was issued and same was returnable on 19-03-2012 and the order is passed on 21-03-2012. In the short notice how the assessee can file all required details. He submits that all the Pooja and Temple management is with the "Sanjeevan Trust" and whether the activities of the said trust are religious or not how that is concerned with the status and object of the present assessee trust? He referred to Sec. 12AA(3) and submits that the Ld. Commissioner exceeded the power vested in her by law as the Ld. Commissioner can only see the activities and not the object. For this proposition the Ld. Counsel relied on the following decisions:

27). Istha and Purta are in fact regarded as the common duties of the twice born class. (cf. Pandit Saraswati, page 27)."

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it can be said that a trust can be either for religious purposes or for charitable purposes or it can be for both charitable and religious purposes."

10. In the case of Calicut Islamic Cultural Society (supra) it is observed and held as under:

21. The above observations are quoted in N.S. Bindra's Interpretation of Statutes (Ninth Edition, page No. 15). In short, the English language cannot be treated as instrument of mathematics precision. Now the question is can it be said that it is the intention of the legislature as per the language used in cl. (a) to s. 11(1) of the Act that save the provisions of ss. 60 to 63 of the Act for claiming the income exempt which is derived from the property held under the trust which must wholly for the charitable or wholly religious purposes. If the institution or trust are engaged into the mixed object which are partly religious and partly charitable or as per the case of the AO as well as the CIT(A) the institution or trust is having the mixed activities of charity as well as religion then the exemption cannot be claimed. The argument of the learned senior counsel is that there is a very thin line of demarcation between the charity and religion. Every religion is having the principles of the charity and many charitable purposes may not have the principles of religion, though the religion is the question of faith. It is to be mentioned here that "charitable purpose" in s. 2(15) of the Act making the inclusive definition and trying to make the charitable purpose more elaborate but there is no definition of the "religious purpose" under the Act. No doubt the law recognises no purpose as charitable unless it is of the public character. In short, it should be for the benefit of the community or the section of the community as held in the case of Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association (supra) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As far as religious purpose is concerned means religious purpose within the meaning of personal law applicable to the assessee as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Bai Hirbai Rahim Aloo Paroo & Kesarbai Dharamsey Kakoo Charitable & Religious Trust vs. CIT (1968) 68 ITR 821 (Bom). There are innumerable examples where there will be very thin line of demarcation between the purposes to identify which are the charitable purposes or which are the religious purposes. In both these appeals, it is not the case of the Department either that any of the bars provided under s. 13 of the Act are applicable to both these assessees as per the interpretation given by the AO as well by the CIT(A). As per the provisions of s. 11(1)(a) of the Act, it requires that there should be nexus between the property held under the trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes and the income under consideration. The interpretation given by the AO as well as by the CIT(A) is that the purpose should be wholly charitable or wholly religious. We are afraid, whether such interpretation can be accepted. In our opinion, said interpretation given by both the authorities is only academic. When the legislature has categorically defined the purposes like religious and charitable and if the assessee is engaged as per their objects in mixed activities, which are partly charitable and partly religious, it cannot be said that s.

"6. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that any trust or institution seeking to avail the benefit of the provisions of ss. 11 and

12 is required to apply for registration under s. 12A. The procedure for registration is prescribed in s. 12AA and as per the provisions of sub-s. (1) of that section, the CIT [Director of IT (Exemption) in the present case] is empowered to satisfy himself about the object of the trust and about the genuineness of the activities of the trust or institution before granting the registration under s. 12A. Once the CIT has not doubted the genuineness of the activities of the assessee nor doubted its charitable object, he cannot refuse to grant registration under s. 12A. In the present case, the registration, however, was refused by the Director of IT (Exemption) on the ground that as per the object clause Nos. 3(1) and 3(2), the assessee trust was established for the benefit of people belonging to Vaish community only which was clearly in violation of s. 13(1)(b). However, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association (supra), an object beneficial to the section of the public is an object of general public utility and to serve a charitable purpose, it is not necessary that the object should be to benefit the whole of mankind or all persons in a particular country or State. Explaining further, it was observed by the Hon'ble apex Court that it is sufficient if the intention is to benefit a section of the public as distinguished from a specified individual. Relying on this decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association (supra), Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Surji Devi. Kunji Lal Jaipuria Charitable Trust (supra) has held that trust created for giving medical aid, social welfare and upliftment of poor members of Vaish community is, therefore, for religious and charitable purposes. To the similar effect is another decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pt. Ram Shanker Misra Trust (1996) 222 ITR 252 (All) wherein it was held that expenditure incurred by a trust for the benefit of one community is an expenditure incurred on a public charitable object. The proposition propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the aforesaid judgments clearly shows that the objects of the assessee trust as indicated in object cls. 3(1) and 3(2) of its trust deed were of charitable nature and since the powers of the CIT/Director of IT (Exemption) conferred under s. 12AA were confined to satisfy himself about the genuineness of the activities of the trust as well as nature of its object being charitable, we are of the view that he was not justified in refusing to grant registration to the assessee trust under s. 12A merely on the ground that the said objects were violative of the provisions of s. 13(1)(b). As held by Lucknow Bench of Tribunal in the case of St. Don Bosco Educational Society vs. CIT (2004) 84 TTJ (Lucknow) 805 : (2004) 90 ITD 477 (Lucknow), the CIT under s. 12AA is empowered to satisfy himself only about the object of the trust and about the genuineness of the activities of the trust and such power does not extend to eligibility of the trust/institution for exemption under s. 11 r/w s. 13 which falls within the domain of the AO. To the similar effect is the decision of Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of Aryan Educational Society vs. CIT (2005) 94 TTJ (Del) 462 : (2005) 93 ITD 546 (Del) wherein it was held that so long as the provisions of ss. 11, 12 and 12A are complied with, the exemption cannot be denied merely because there is any violation of the provisions of s. 13.