Shivshakti Deosthan Trust, Pune V. CIT, Pune

ITA 124/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 12424514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-11-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDEEP GARG
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Question of law
• Section: 260A; 12A; 12AA; 6; 12; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 124/PN/2013 SHIVASHAKTI DEOSTHAN TRUST, AT POST NIRGUDE, TAL : INDAPUR, DIST : PUNE PAN NO.AALTS4903P .. APPELLANT VS. CIT-I, PUNE .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI REVENUE BY : SHRI SANDEEP GARG, CIT DATE OF HEARING : 13-11-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26-11-2014 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 30-11-2012 OF THE CIT(A)-I, PUNE REFUSING REG ISTRATION U/S.12A OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE TRUST FILED FORM NO.10A FOR REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE I.T. ACT. FROM THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, TH E LD.CIT NOTED THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST ARE PRIMARILY RELIGIO US SUCH AS CONSTRUCTION OF SHIVA MANDIR, MANAGING THE WORK OF THE MANDIR, C ARRYING OUT REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF THE MANDIR, ARRANGING REL IGIOUS CEREMONY SUCH AS PUJA AND UTSAVS AND TEACHINGS OF HINDU RELI GION ETC. HOWEVER, THE TRUST DEED ALSO CONTAINS SEVERAL SOCIA L AND CHARITABLE 2 OBJECTS. FROM THE ABOVE, THE LD.CIT NOTED THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST ARE BOTH RELIGIOUS AS WELL AS CHARITABLE AND THE AS SESSEE TRUST IS NEITHER WHOLLY RELIGIOUS NOR WHOLLY CHARITABLE. ACCORDING TO HIM, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE I.T. ACT , 1961, EXEMPTION IS APPLICABLE TO A TRUST WHICH IS EITHER WHOLLY RELIGI OUS OR WHOLLY CHARITABLE. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT AVAILABLE TO A TRUS T WHICH HAS BOTH THE ACTIVITIES, I.E. RELIGIOUS AS WELL AS CHARITABLE PU RPOSES. THE LD.CIT RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JAMMU & KASHM IR HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GHULAM MOHIDIN TRUST VS. CIT REPORTED I N 245 ITR 587 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT A TRUST IS NOT ENTITL ED FOR EXEMPTION U/S.11 WHERE THE OBJECTS ARE DISTRIBUTIVE AND IN TH AT WAY BOTH RELIGIOUS AS WELL AS CHARITABLE. 2.1 THE LD.CIT FURTHER REFERRED TO THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 13(1)(B) AND NOTED THAT IN ASSESSEES CASE THE TRUS T DEED CONTAINS SEVERAL CHARITABLE OBJECTS. AT THE SAME TIME, THE TRUST DEED ALSO CONTAINS SEVERAL RELIGIOUS OBJECTS. HE, THEREFORE, WAS OF THE OPINION THAT SUCH RELIGIOUS OBJECT WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSIDE RED AS INTENDED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CONCERNED RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY. THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(B) WILL BE APPLICABLE T O THE ASSESSEE TRUST AND THE BENEFIT OF SECTIONS 11 AND 12 WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE TO IT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, HE HELD THAT WHEN THE TRUST IS N OT AT ALL ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS ENVISAGED IN SECTIONS 11 AND 12, NO PU RPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY GRANTING REGISTRATION U/S.12A. IN VIEW O F THE ABOVE, HE REJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S.12A OF THE I.T. ACT. 3 3. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT THE ASSESSE E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR RE GISTRATION OF THE TRUST APPLIED UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT HOLDING THAT IT WAS FORMED FOR PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY. THE TRUST WAS CHARITABLE TRUST WITH CHARITABLE OBJECTS AS HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY TH E LD. CIT PUNE. THE OBJECTS BEING GENUINE AND CHARITABLE THE REGISTRATION BE GRANTED TO THE TRUST. 2) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W AND, CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS THE 'HIND U' IS NOT RELIGION' IN ITSELF. 'DHARAMA' IS A WORD USED NOT ONLY BY 'HINDU ISM' BUT ALSO AMONG 'BUDDHISM' AND 'JAINISM' AS SIGNIFYING THE RIGHT PATH. THE LD. CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE REGISTRATION TO THE TRUST HOLDING THAT THE OBJECTS WERE RESTRICTED TO ONLY 'HINDUISM' AN D WERE NOT CHARITABLE. THE 'HINDUISM' OR 'HINDU DHARAMA' IS NOT A RELIGION AS HAS BEEN HELD BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. THE REGISTRATION BE GRANTED TO THE TRUST. 3) THE APPELLANT CRAVES/LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO TH E COPY OF THE OBJECT CLAUSE OF THE TRUST DEED PLACED AT PAPER BOO K PAGES 9 AND 10, SUBMITTED THAT THE OBJECTS ARE MIXED, I.E. BOTH REL IGIOUS AS WELL AS CHARITABLE IN NATURE. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DAWOODI BOHRA JAMAT RE PORTED IN 364 ITR 31 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT WHEN THE ACTIVITIES OF A TRU ST ARE BOTH CHARITABLE AS WELL AS RELIGIOUS IN NATURE AND THE BENEFITS ARE NOT EXCLUSIVELY FOR PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY, THEN THE TRUST IS N OT DISQUALIFIED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION. ACCORDINGLY, REGISTRATION WAS GRA NTED TO THE DAWOODI BOHRA JAMAT TRUST. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE ABOVE-MENTIONED DECISION HAS CONSIDERE D THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11, 12, 12A AND 13(1)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT . HE ACCORDINGLY 4 SUBMITTED THAT THIS BEING A COVERED MATTER IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE REGISTRATION U/S.12A SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSES SEE TRUST. 5. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST ARE BOTH RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABL E AND THE PREDOMINANT OBJECTS ARE RELIGIOUS IN NATURE, THEREF ORE, THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS NOT ENTITLED TO REGISTRATION U/S.12A OF TH E I.T. ACT. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE CIT AND THE PAPER BOOK FIL ED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECI SIONS CITED BEFORE US. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE OBJEC TS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST ARE MIXED, I.E., SOME OF THE OBJECTS ARE RELIGIOUS AND SOME OF THE OBJECTS ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE FOR WHICH THE LD.C IT DENIED REGISTRATION U/S.12A OF THE I.T. ACT. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DAWOODI BOHRA JAMAT (SUPRA) WHILE DECID ING AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER (SHORT NOTES) : NORMALLY A FINDING OF FACT DECIDED BY THE LAST FAC T FINDING AUTHORITY IS FINAL AND OUGHT NOT TO BE LIGHTLY INTERFERED WITH B Y THE HIGH COURT IN AN APPEAL. THE APPELLATE COURTS, HOWEVER, OUGHT TO BE C AUTIOUS WHILE WEEDING OUT SUCH QUESTIONS AND SHOULD THE QUESTION INVOL VE EXAMINATION OF A FINDING OF FACT, EX-CAUTELA ABUNDA NTI THE APPELLATE COURTS WOULD REQUIRE TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE QUESTION INVOLVES MERELY A FINDING OF FACT OR THE LEGAL EFFECT OF SUCH PROVEN FACTS OR DOCUMENTS IN APPEAL. WHILE THE FORMER WOULD BE A QUE STION OF FACT WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE INTERFERED WITH, THE LATTER IS NECESSARILY A QUESTION OF LAW WHICH WOULD REQUIRE CONSIDERATION. OF TEN QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT ARE INTRICATELY ENTWINED, SOMETIMES TO T HE EXTENT OF BLURRING THE DOMAINS IN WHICH THEY OUGHT TO BE CONSID ERED AND, THEREFORE, REQUIRE CAUTIOUS CONSIDERATION. A QUESTION WHERE THE LEGAL EFFECT OF PROVEN FACTS IS INTRINSICALLY IN APPEAL HAS TO BE DIFFERENTIATED FROM A QUESTION WHERE A FINDING OF FACT ALONE IS ASSAIL ED. WALI MOHAMMAD V. MOHAMMAD BAKSH [1930] 57 IA 86 ; SECRETARY O F STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL V. RAMESWARAM DEVASTHANAM [1934] 61IA 163; LAKSHMIDHAR MISRA V. RANGALAL [1949] 76 IA 271 AND SREE MEENAKSHI MILLS LTD . V. CIT [1957] 31ITR 28 (SC) RELIED ON. 5 A CONJOINT READING OF SECTIONS 11,12,12A AND 12AA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, MAKES IT CLEAR THAT REGISTRATION UNDER SECT IONS 12A AND 12AA IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR AVAILING OF THE BE NEFIT UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12. UNDER THE SCHEME OF THE ACT, SECTIO NS 11 AND 12 ARE SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS WHICH PROVIDE FOR EXEMPTIONS AVAILABLE TO A RELIGIOUS OR CHARITABLE TRUST. SECTION 13 LISTS THE CIR CUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE EXEMPTION WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE TO A REL IGIOUS OR CHARITABLE TRUST OTHERWISE FALLING UNDER SECTION 11 OR 12 AND, THEREFORE, REQUIRES TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 11 AND 12 TOWARDS DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILI TY OF A TRUST TO CLAIM EXEMPTION UNDER THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS. SECTIO N 13(L)(B) CONCEPTUALISES THAT INCOME OF A CHARITABLE TRUST CREAT ED OR ESTABLISHED FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS COMMUNIT Y OR CASTE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 OR SECT ION 12 OF THE ACT. THUS, WHILE UNDER SECTION 11 A TRUST WHICH IS ESTABLISHED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES TO BENEFIT A PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY M AY BE A VALID CHARITABLE TRUST, UNDER SECTION 13(1)(B) SUCH TRUST WOU LD NOT BE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THE INCOME WOULD BE EXIGIBLE TO TAX UNDER THE ACT. THE PHRASE 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE' IS EXPANSIVE AND INCLUSI VE. THE EXPRESSION 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE' IS DEFINED IN THE DICT IONARY CLAUSE OF THE ACT UNDER SECTION 2(15) BY WAY OF AN INCLUSIVE DE FINITION SO AS TO INCLUDE RELIEF TO THE POOR, EDUCATION, MEDICAL RELI EF AND ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. THE EXPRESSION 'ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY' IS OF THE WIDEST CO NNOTATION. THE WORD 'GENERAL' IN THE EXPRESSION MEANS PERTAINING TO A WHOL E CLASS. THEREFORE, ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OBJECT OF BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC OR A SECTION OF THE PUBLIC AS DISTINGUISHED FROM BENEFIT TO AN INDIVIDUAL OR A GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS WOULD BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE. T HE EXPRESSION WOULD PRIMA FACIE INCLUDE ALL OBJECTS WHICH PROMOTE THE WELL-BEING OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT A PURPOSE WOULD CEASE TO BE CHARITABLE EVEN WHEN PUBLIC WELFARE IS INTENDED TO B E SERVED. IF THE PRIMARY PURPOSE AND THE PREDOMINANT OBJECT OF A TRUST ARE TO PROMOTE THE WELFARE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC THE PURPOSE WOULD BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE. IF THE PRIMARY OR PREDOMINANT OBJECT OF AN INSTITUTION IS CHARITABLE, ANY OTHER OBJECT WHICH MIGHT NOT BE CHA RITABLE BUT WHICH IS ANCILLARY OR INCIDENTAL TO THE DOMINANT PURPOSE, WOU LD NOT PREVENT THE INSTITUTION FROM BEING A VALID CHARITABLE TRUST. AHMEDABAD RANA CASTE ASSOCIATION V. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 704 (SC); THIAGARAJAR CHARITIES V. ADDL . CIT [1997] 225 ITR 1010 (SC) ; ADDL . CIT V. SURAT ART SILK CLOTH MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC); CIT V. KAMLA TOWN TRUST [1996] 217 ITR 699 (SC); ABDUL SATHAR HAJI MOOSA SAIT DHARMASTAPANAM V. COMMR . OF AGRL . I. T. [1973] 91 ITR 5 (SC); TRUSTEES OF GORDHANDAS GOVIN - DRAM FAMILY CHARITY TRUST V. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 47 (SC) ; YOGIRAJ CHARITY TRUST V. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 777 (SC) ; SOLE TRUSTEE , LOKA SHIKSHANA TRUST V. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 234 (SC) AND CIT V. ANDHRA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE [1965] 55 ITR 722 (SC) RELIED ON. SECTION 13 IS IN THE NATURE OF AN EXCEPTION FROM APP LICABILITY OF SECTION 11 OR 12 AND THE EXAMINATION OF ITS APPLICABILITY WO ULD ONLY ARISE AT THE STAGE OF CLAIM UNDER SECTION 11 OR 12. THUS, WHERE THE INCOME OF A TRUST IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11, THE ELIGIBILITY FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION OUGHT TO BE TESTED ON THE TOUCHSTO NE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13. 6 FROM THE PHRASEOLOGY IN CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 13(1), I T COULD BE INFERRED THAT THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO INCLUDE ON LY TRUSTS ESTABLISHED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. THAT, HOWEVER, DOE S NOT MEAN THAT IF A TRUST IS A COMPOSITE ONE, THAT IS ONE FOR BOT H RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE PURPOSES, IT WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY CLAUSE (B). WHAT IS INTENDED TO BE EXCLUDED FROM BEING ELIGIBLE FOR EXE MPTION UNDER SECTION 11 IS A TRUST FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE WHICH IS EST ABLISHED FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY O R CASTE. SUCH TRUSTS WITH COMPOSITE OBJECTS WOULD NOT BE EXPELLED OUT OF THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 13(1)(B) PER SE. THE SECTION REQUIRES IT TO BE ESTABLISHED THAT SUCH CHARITABLE PURPOSE IS NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF A P ARTICULAR RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY OR CASTE. THAT IS TO SAY, IT NEEDS TO BE EXAM INED WHETHER SUCH RELIGIOUS-CHARITABLE ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE TRUST BENEFITS ONLY A CERTAIN PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY OR CLASS OR SE RVES ACROSS THE COMMUNITIES AND FOR SOCIETY AT LARGE. SOLE TRUSTEE , LOKA SHIKSHANA TRUST V. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 234 (SC) AND CIT V. ANDHRA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE [1965] 55 ITR 722 (SC) RELIED ON. INSTITUTIONS ESTABLISHED TO SPREAD RELIGIOUS AWARENESS BY M EANS OF EDUCATION THOUGH ESTABLISHED TO PROMOTE AND FURTHER R ELIGIOUS THOUGHT COULD NOT BE RESTRICTED TO RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. UNLIKE THE PHRASE 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE', 'RELIGIOUS PUR POSE' IS NOT DEFINED UNDER THE ACT. A RELIGIOUS PURPOSE WOULD BE O NE RELATING TO A PARTICULAR RELIGION AND BROADLY WOULD ENCOMPASS OBJEC TS RELATING TO OBSERVANCE OF RITUALS AND CEREMONIES, PROPAGATION OF T ENETS OF THE RELIGION AND OTHER ALLIED ACTIVITIES OF THE RELIGIOU S COMMUNITY. IN CERTAIN CASES, THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST MAY CONTAIN ELEMENTS OF BOTH : RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE AND THUS, BOTH PURPOSES MAY OV ERLAP. THIS IS MORE SO WHEN THE RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY A P ARTICULAR SECTION OF PEOPLE WOULD BE A CHARITABLE ACTIVITY FOR OR TOW ARDS OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY AND ALSO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE . THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST AS MENTIONED UNDER THE TRUST DEED WERE TO ARRANGE FOR NYAZ AND MAJLIS (LUNCH AND DINNE R) ON RELIGIOUS OCCASIONS OF THE BIRTH ANNIVERSARY AND URS MUBARAK OF A WLIYA-E- QUIRAM AND SAINTS OF THE DAWOODI BOHRA COMMUNITY, TO ARRANGE FOR LUNCH AND DINNER ON RELIGIOUS OCCASIONS AND AUSPICIOUS D AYS OF THE DAWOODI BOHRA COMMUNITY, FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE DAWOODI BOHRA COMMUNITY TO GIVE AND TAKE QARDAN HASANA ACCORDING T O FARMA OF QURANE MAJID, TO ARRANGE FOR RELIGIOUS EDUCATION AND TO ESTABLISH MADARSA AND SUCH ORGANIZATION, TO ASSIST/HELP THE NEEDY PEOPLE FOR RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES, TO CARRY OUT ALL RELIGIOUS ACTI VITIES ACCORDING TO SHARIAT AND DIRECTION OF SHARIAT-E-MOHAMMEDIYAH FOR T HE PROSPERITY OF THE DAWOODI BOHRA COMMUNITY. THE ASSESSEE-TRUST FILED AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER U NDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT READ WITH SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT FOR AVAILING OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. THE COMMISSIONE R REJECTED THE APPLICATION ON THE GROUND THAT SINCE THE OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF THE TRUST WAS CONFINED ONLY TO A PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS COMM UNITY SECTION 13(1)(B) WOULD BE ATTRACTED. ON APPEAL, THE TRIBUNA L (SEE DAWOODI BOHRA JAMAT V. CIT [2009] 317 ITR (AT) 133 (INDORE) ) CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS A PUBLIC RELIGIOUS T RUST AS THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST WERE WHOLLY RELIGIOUS IN NATURE T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(B) WHICH WERE OTHERWISE APPLICABLE IN T HE CASE OF CHARITABLE TRUSTS WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE AND HELD TH AT THE ASSESSEE- TRUST WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION AND DIRECTED THE COMM ISSIONER TO 7 GRANT REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A READ WITH SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE-TRUST. ON APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE HIGH COURT CONCLUDED, FIRSTLY, THAT SINCE THE APPELLATE TR IBUNAL HAD RECORDED A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A PUBLI C RELIGIOUS TRUST, IT WOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH SUCH A FINDING OF FACT IN EXERCISE OF ITS POWERS UNDER SECTION 260A AND, SECONDLY, AS THE TRUST WA S NOT CREATED OR ESTABLISHED FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY PARTICU LAR RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY OR CASTE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(B) WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO IT AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. ON FURTHER APPEALS : HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEALS, (I) THAT DETERMINATION O F THE NATURE OF THE TRUST AS WHOLLY RELIGIOUS OR WHOLLY CHARITABLE OR BOTH CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS UNDER THE ACT IS NOT A QUESTION OF FACT. IT IS A QUESTION WHICH REQUIRES EXAMINATION OF THE LEGAL EFFECTS OF T HE PROVEN FACTS AND DOCUMENTS, THAT IS, THE LEGAL IMPLICATION OF THE OBJ ECTS OF THE ASSESSEE- TRUST AS CONTAINED IN THE TRUST DEED. IT IS ONLY THE OB JECTS OF A TRUST AS DECLARED IN THE TRUST DEED WHICH WOULD GOVERN ITS RIG HT OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OR 12. IT IS THE ANALYSIS OF THESE OBJE CTS IN THE BACKDROP OF FISCAL JURISPRUDENCE WHICH WOULD ILLUMIN ATE THE PURPOSE BEHIND CREATION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TRUST FOR EITH ER RELIGIOUS OR CHARITABLE OR BOTH RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE PURPOSE. THEREFORE, THE HIGH COURT HAD ERRED IN REFUSING TO INTERFERE WITH T HE OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF THE CHARACTER OF THE TRUST ON THE GROUNDS THAT THEY WERE PURE FINDINGS OF FACT. (II) THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST WERE NOT IN DICATIVE OF A WHOLLY RELIGIOUS PURPOSE BUT WERE COLLECTIVELY INDICA TIVE OF BOTH CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. ALTHOUGH OBJECTS (C) AND (F) WHICH PROVIDED FOR ACTIVITIES COMPLETELY RELIGIOUS IN NATUR E AND RESTRICTED TO THE SPECIFIC COMMUNITY OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST WERE OBJECTS WITH RELIGIOUS PURPOSE ONLY, THE FACT THAT THE OTHER OBJEC TS TRACED THEIR SOURCE TO THE HOLY QURAN AND RESOLVED TO ABIDE BY THE PATH OF GODLINESS SHOWN BY ALLAH WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO CON CLUDE THAT THE ENTIRE PURPOSE AND ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST WERE PURELY RELIGIOUS IN COLOUR. THE OBJECTS REFLECTED THE INTENT OF THE TRUST AS OBSERVANCE OF THE TENETS OF ISLAM, BUT DID NOT RESTRICT THE ACTIVITI ES OF THE TRUST TO RELIGIOUS OBLIGATIONS ONLY AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY. THE PROVISION OF FOOD TO THE PUBLIC ON RE LIGIOUS DAYS OF THE COMMUNITY, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MADARSAS AND ORGANISATIO NS FOR DISSEMINATION OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION AND RENDERING ASSIST ANCE TO THE NEEDY AND POOR FOR RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES WOULD REFLECT THE ESSENCE OF CHARITY. THE ACTIVITY OF PROVIDING FOR FOOD ON CERT AIN SPECIFIC OCCASIONS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS AND AUSPICIOUS EVENTS OF THE DAWOOD I BOHRA COMMUNITY DID NOT RESTRICT THE BENEFIT TO THE MEMBER S OF THE COMMUNITY. NEITHER THE RELIGIOUS TENETS NOR THE OBJEC TS AS EXPRESSED LIMITED THE SERVICE OF FOOD ON THESE OCCASIONS TO MEMBE RS OF THE SPECIFIC COMMUNITY. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MADARSAS OR INST ITUTIONS TO IMPART RELIGIOUS EDUCATION TO THE MASSES WOULD QUALIFY AS A CHARITABLE PURPOSE QUALIFYING UNDER THE HEAD OF EDUCATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY, ASSISTANCE BY T HE ASSESSEE-TRUST TO THE NEEDY AND POOR FOR RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES WOULD NOT DIVEST THE TRUST OF ITS ALTRUIST CHARACTER. THEREFORE, THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST EXHIBITED THE DUAL TENOR OF RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE PURPOSES AN D ACTIVITIES. SECTION 11 OF THE ACT ALLOWED SUCH TRUST WITH COMPOSIT E OBJECTS TO CLAIM EXEMPTION FROM TAX AS A RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABL E TRUST SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13. THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRU ST UNDER SUCH OBJECTS WOULD, THEREFORE, BE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION A CCORDINGLY. 8 IN RE : TRUSTEES OF THE TRIBUNE [1939] 7 ITR 415 (PC) AND IN RE : SOUTH PLACE ETHICAL SOCIETY ; BARRALET V. ATTORNEY GENERAL [1980] 3 ALL ER 918; [1980] 1 WLR1565; 54 TAX CAS 446 APPLIED. (III) THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST WERE BASED ON RELIGIOUS TENETS UNDER THE QURAN ACCORDING TO THE RELIGIOUS FAI TH OF ISLAM. THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST THOUGH BOTH CHARITABLE AND RE LIGIOUS WERE NOT EXCLUSIVELY MEANT FOR A PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS COMMUNIT Y. THE OBJECTS DID NOT CHANNEL THE BENEFITS TO ANY COMMUNITY IF NOT THE DAWOODI BOHRA COMMUNITY AND THUS, WOULD NOT FALL UNDER THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(B) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE-TRUST WAS A CHA RITABLE AND RELIGIOUS TRUST WHICH DID NOT BENEFIT ANY SPECIFIC RE LIGIOUS COMMUNITY AND, THEREFORE, IT COULD NOT BE HELD THAT SECTION 13 (1)(B) OF THE ACT WOULD BE ATTRACTED TO THE ASSESSEE-TRUST AND THEREBY, IT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. 6.1 IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT CITED (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THE LD.CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING REGISTRATION U/S.12A OF THE I.T. ACT. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT AND DIRECT HIM TO GRANT REGISTRATION U/S .12A OF THE I.T. ACT. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26-11-2014. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER PUNE DATED: 26 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT-I, PUNE 4. THE D.R, A PUNE BENCH 5. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE