Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. After examining the detailed objections filed and explained by the assessee trust, the Commissioner held that the explanations offered by the assessee trust are not sufficient to justify the characteristic features of the activities carried on by the assessee trust. The Commissioner found that the turnover of the assessee is increasing year after year and the profit is also increasing manifold and the whole activity is almost for the purpose of generating profit and in such circumstances, the assessee cannot be held to be a charitable trust as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Chamber of Commerce v. CIT WB-II (101 ITR 234). The Commissioner of Income-tax explained that distributing ophthalmic and other medical accessories at low cost or concessional rate by itself is not a charitable activity. Even regular business houses are giving such price benefits to their customers. Therefore, the price advantage enjoyed by certain group of people cannot be the sole criteria to accept the contention of the assessee trust that it is carrying on charitable activitities. The Commissioner observed that no details are available in respect of the beneficiaries of the activities stated to be charitable carried on by the assessee. He further relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogiraj Charity Trust v. CIT (103-777) wherein it was held that where there are various objects of a trust, which are all independent objects and even if one of its objects cannot be described as a charitable, the claim of the entire trust for exemption must fail. The Commissioner held that in the case of the assessee trust, out of the seven objects, object clauses (e) and (f) fail to be a charitable one, for the way they are performed and the rest of the five objects (a) to (d) and (f) which are in the nature of charitable activities would not be of any help to the assessee trust, for the reason that those five objects have not been attended to by the assessee trust through its activities. He, accordingly, confirmed his proposal and cancelled the registration granted to the assessee trust under sec.12A on 9.10.1922. The assessee is aggrieved and therefore, the appeal before us.

(l) The Commissioner of Income-tax is wrong in assuming that any of the objects of the Trust is non- charitable and he erred in invoking the ratio of the decision in Yogiraj Charity Trust. In the appellant's case, all the objects are charitable and the activity of manufacturing and marketing of Eye care products was carried on only to feed the charity and satisfies the requirements of sec.11(4A)."

10. Shri V. Ramachandran, the learned Senior Counsel along with Dr. Anita Sumanth, appeared for the assessee trust and argued the case at length.

38. Therefore, it is our considered opinion that the action of the Commissioner of Income-tax is justified in the light of the definition of the expression "charitable purpose" provided insec.2(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961. This is because the singular activity of carrying on of business continued by the assessee trust through out its life cannot be treated as a charitable activity.

39. The application of funds and profits of the business carried on by a trust shall be relevant for the purpose of sec.11, only after it is primarily held that the institution is established for carrying on charitable purpose and in fact, the said institution is carrying on such activities. Therefore, carrying on of the singular activity of business against other charitable objectives stated in the trust deed is not sufficient to claim the status of a charitable institution. The litmus test of a charitable institution is that it should primarily carry on charitable activities. The law relating to charity provided in the Income-tax Act, 1961 has not diluted in any way the real meaning and concept of the expression "charity". Charity is the noble cause meant for the benefit and upliftment of the down trodden, poor and the needy. Charity is not a technical concept safeguarded by legal jargons. Charity is not an edifice built on logical deliberations. Charity is a divine reflection of human civilization which finds ways and means to help the needy, to protect the helpless, to support the poor and to work for the betterment of the society and man kind. So what is necessary is actual work of charity, how so ever humble it might be. If the assessee fails in this basic test, it is not necessary to proceed further to find out how the assessee has applied its profit/ disposable funds; whether it has accumulated or it has been donated. The claim of the assessee fails at the threshold itself. Where the assessee has not carried on any charitable activities but only a business and even if a part of that business income is applied for charitable purposes, still the assessee could not be treated as an institution entitled for the benefit of sec.11. It is for such institution, the Act has provided the scheme under sec.80G. There is a distinction between carrying on of charitable activities and donations for charitable purposes. In the first case that of charitable activities, the institution is engaged in charitable activities. Charity is its soul. But in the latter case, the activities are business activities even though, as a good samaritan a portion of its income is given for charity. That is only an appropriation of income. It is to take care of such situation that the Act has provided for sec.80G. They are not entitled for claiming deduction under sec.11. We are afraid that the assessee falls in this category. Even though charitable activity is a liberal manifestation, the frame of a charitable institution under the provisions of the Income-tax Act is strictly defined. The assessee has been carrying on the sole function of manufacture and sale of Intra Ocular Lens and other products. The assessee is earning high amount of profits from year to year. There is nothing on record to show anything about concessional price collected for distribution of such products among needy public. Even though the assessee has accumulated its profits as per income-tax law, that accumulation has become a tool of capitalization of its funds. Sec.11(4A) provides for satisfying of two conditions to claim the benefits of sec.11, in the case of an institution earning income from profits and gains of business. The first condition is that the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the trust. The second condition is that separate books of account are to be maintained in respect of such business. As far as this case is concerned, the second condition is satisfied. But the question is whether the assessee has satisfied the first condition that whether its business has been carried on as a business incidental to the attainment of its objectives or not.

40. Carrying on of a business to be incidental to the charitable activities of a trust, it is necessary that the trust should also carry on the charitable activities stated as its objects. Carrying on of the business should only be in the course of carrying on of its charitable activities. Therefore, carrying on of the main objects of the charitable activities is an indispensable requirement for claiming the statutory recognition as a charitable institution. Carrying on of the business alone, without carrying on the proclaimed charitable objectives does not make the business incidental to the carrying on of the principal charitable activities. The assessee has proclaimed five objectives as principal charitable objectives and two objects [objects (e) and (g)] to carry on business incidental to the attainment of other five main objectives of the trust. But in the present case, the assessee has converted the incidental objects as the main object of the assessee being that of carrying on of full-fledged business and chose not to carry on the proclaimed main objects of the charitable activities. In these circumstances, we have to hold that the business carried on by the assessee trust cannot be considered as business incidental to the attainment of main objects of charity. We have to hold therefore that, the assessee has not satisfied the first condition of sec.11(4A).