Kuka Martyrs Memorial Trust, Ludhiana V. CIT-I, Ludhiana

ITA 1240/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2305 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-04-2013
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMARVEER SINGH
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Condonation of delay
• Section: 80G; 12AA; 12; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1202,1239 & 1240/CHD/2011 A.Y: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 KUKA MARTYRS MEMORIAL TRUST, V CIT-II, SRI BHAINI SAHIB (HQ), LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AAATK-6080C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANDEEP GOYAL & SHRI RISHABH SINGLA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AMARVEER SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 09.04.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.04.2013 ORDER PER HARI OM MARATHA,JM THESE ARE THREE APPEALS BY THE SAME ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 TO 2010-11 PREFERRED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME-TAX (ADMN.), LUDHIANA, WHO HAS REFUSED TO RE NEW THE APPROVAL U/S 80(5)G OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ( ' THE ACT' FOR SHORT) ALTHOUGH THE APPELLANT IS ALREADY REGIS TERED AS A CHARITABLE TRUST U/S 12A. THIS REFUND IS ON THE PR EMISE THAT THE TRUST IS NOT ONLY A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUS T BUT IS ALSO A RELIGIOUS TRUST, SO, IT CANNOT BE ELIGIBLE F OR DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF DONATION ETC. IN VIEW OF S. 80G(5)(II I) OF THE ACT. SINCE, IN ALL THESE APPEALS, EXACTLY IDENTICAL ISSU E(S) IS INVOLVED, THESE ARE BEING DECIDED BY A COMMON ORDER . 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE APPELLANT TRUST WAS CREATED ON 31.07.1992 HAVING ON E MAIN-TRUSTEE AND FIVE OTHER TRUSTEES. LATER ON, VI DE RESOLUTION DATED 01.03.1997 THE NUMBER OF OTHER TRU STEES WAS INCREASED TO SEVEN, APART FROM THE CHIEF PATRON (I.E. THE MAIN-TRUSTEE). THE AIMS AND OBJECTS OF THE TRUST H AVE ALSO BEEN ENLARGED THROUGH THIS RESOLUTION. A REGISTRAT ION OF THIS TRUST FROM THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, WAS OBT AINED AFTER FIVE YEARS OF THE CONSTITUTION ON 01.08.1997. 3. THE TRUST WAS GRANTED EXEMPTION U/S 80G(5) VIDE ORDER DATED 11.2.2005 UPTO A.Y. 2007-08. FRESH APPLICATION WAS FILED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 80G ON 23.0 3.2011 AFTER A GAP INVOLVING OF A.Y.S 2008-09, 2009-10 AND 2010-11. THE LD. COMMISSIONER WITH A VIEW TO SATIS FY HIMSELF REGARDING THE FULFILLMENT OF REQUISITE COND ITIONS OF S.80G(5) OF THE ACT, ISSUED A QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 01.09.2011 TO THE APPLICANT-TRUST. THE ASSESSEE EX PLAINED THAT IT IS WORKING FOR THE ACHIEVEMENT OF ITS AIMS AND OBJECTS WHICH ARE NECESSARILY CHARITABLE IN NATURE, AS THESE ARE AS UNDER : (A) TO PROPAGATE THE MESSAGE, TEACHING, IDEALS AND PHILOSOPHY OF ALL THE RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL REFOR MERS, PROPHETS AND LEADING FIGURES OF THE WORLD INCLUDING SIKH GURUS WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON VEGETARIANS. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE OBJECTS, THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS FOUND THAT THESE HAVE A TINGE OF R ELIGIOUS NATURE WHICH DEBARS IT FROM GETTING EXEMPTION U/S 8 0G OF THE ACT. HE HAS QUOTED EXPL. NO. 3 APPENDED TO S.8 0G IN 3 THIS REGARD. HE HAS ALSO DISCUSSED SOME DECISIONS IN THIS REGARD INCLUDING THAT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT RENDERE D IN THE CASE OF UPPER GANGES SUGAR MILLS LTD. V CIT 227 ITR 578 (S.C). FINALLY, HE HAS OPINED THAT THE TRUST BEING PURSING RELIGIOUS OBJECTS, IT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THIS EXEM PTION. THE ANOTHER OBJECTION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER IS THAT T HE AIMS AND OBJECTS HAVE BEEN INCREASED VIDE RESOLUTION DAT ED 01.03.1997 AND THEREAFTER, IT HAS GOT REGISTERED WI TH THE REGISTRAR OF FIRMS AND SOCIETIES AFTER THE ABOVE UN ILATERAL AMENDMENT WITHOUT GETTING THE APPROVAL FROM THE PRI NCIPAL COURT OF LAW HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE TRUST. I N THIS REGARD, RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAKTHI CHARITIES V CIT 182 ITR 483 (MAD). HE HAS, THUS, FOUND THAT THE TRUST IS NOT PROPERLY CONSTITUTED AND IT HAS FAILED TO FULFILL T HE CONDITIONS BEFORE MAKING CHANGES IN ITS OBJECTS ETC . THEREFORE, HE HAS REJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR EXEM PTION U/S 80G OF THE ACT. 5. NOW, THE ASSESSEE/APPLICANT IS AGGRIEVED. IT HA S TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL : 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, LUDHI ANA (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'LD. CIT') ERRED IN REJ ECTING THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 80G(5) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT READ WITH RULE 11AA(5) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, BY WRONGLY IN TERPRETING THE LAW ON THE ISSUE AND ALSO BY WAY OF WRONG APPRECIAT ION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE AIMS & OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE EX EMPTION UNDER SECTION 80G(5) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (A) THE LD. CIT HAS WRONGLY CONCLUDED THAT THE 4 OBJECTS OF THE TRUST ARE CLEARLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY OF RELIGIOUS NATURE, WHICH IS NOT ELIGI BLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80G(5) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 IN VIEW OF THE EXPLANATION 3. (B) THAT THE LD. CIT HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT OUT OF THE OBJECTS, THE ONE IN WHICH HE HAS LAID EMPHASIS UPON DOES ALSO NOT CONVEY THAT THE AIMS AND OBJECTS OF THE TRUST ARE RELIGIOUS IN NATURE. IN FACT, ON A READING OF THE SAID OBJECT OF THE TRUST, IT TRANSPIRES THAT THE TRUST HAS AMONGST ITS OBJECTS TO PROPAGATE THE MESSAGE, TEACHINGS, IDEALS AND PHILOSOPHY OF ALL THE RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL REFORMERS, PROPHETS AND LEADING FIGURES OF THE WORLD AND IS NOT CONFINED TO EITHER ANY ONE RELIGION OR DIFFERENT RELIGIONS OR F OR THAT MATTER THE RELIGIOUS LEADERS. IN FACT, THE REFERENC E TO THE RELIGIOUS LEADERS IS IN THE CATEGORY OF THE SPIRITU AL REFORMERS AND LEADING FIGURES OF THE WORLD AND THE SAID OBJECT CANNOT BE ASSUMED TO BE RELIGIOUS IN ANY MAN NER. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT HAS MISAPPLIED THE LAW IN THIS REG ARD AND HAS RELIED UPON VARIOUS JUDGMENTS QUOTED BY HIM IN THE ORDER ARE TOTALLY OUT OF PLACE. HE HAS FAILED TO TAKE NOTICE OF THE FACT THAT IN ALL THOSE JUDGMENTS THE COURTS HAVE MADE AN ENDEAVO UR TO FIND OUT AS TO WHETHER THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST ARE RELIG IOUS OR NOT WHICH ARE COVERED BY EXPLANATION 3. HE HAS NOT CORRECTLY APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE CLAUSE BEING RELIED UPON BY HIM IS MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE CLAUSES MENTIO NED IN THE SAID JUDGMENTS. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT TO THAT EXTENT IS AGAINST THE LAW LAID DOWN BY VARIOUS COURTS. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER W ITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE TRUST IN QUESTION IS MEANT ONLY AND ONLY FOR THE CHARITABLE PURPOSES. THE VARIOUS CHARI TABLE OBJECTS AND THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST WERE DULY INFORMED TO THE LD. CIT BUT HE HAS NOT EVEN APPRECIATED THOSE. IT IS BROUGH T TO THE NOTICE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT THAT AMONGST OTHERS, THE TRUST I S PROVIDING FREE LANGAR (FOOD) TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC; IS MAINTAINING A PARK AT MALERKOTLA WHICH IS USED BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC; HOL DING A FUNCTION EVERY MONTH IN THE MEMORY OF KUKA MARTYRS ON WHICH OCCASION THE LANGAR IS DISTRIBUTED AND MORAL VALUES ARE PREACHE D; PROMOTING NATIONAL FEELINGS AMONGST THE PEOPLE. BESIDES THAT, THE TRUST IS ALSO CONSTRUCTING MEDITATION HALL FOR BENEFIT OF TH E PUBLIC AT LARGE. IT IS ALSO MAINTAINING A MUSEUM HALL WHERE MONUMENT S AND PAINTINGS OF THE KUKA MARTYRS HAVE BEEN KEPT AND A NUMBER OF PEOPLE VISIT THE MUSEUM TO PAY TRIBUTES TO THOSE MA RTYRS. IT IS ALSO MAINTAINING A LIBRARY WHERE BOOKS OF GENERAL KNOWLE DGE, NOTIONAL DEVOTION AND CULTURAL HERITAGE OF COUNTRY ARE KEPT. THESE ACTIVITIES ARE ONLY TO NAME A FEW. IN FACT, EVERY SINGLE PENNY OF THE TRUST IS BEING USED FOR SUCH LIKE PURPOSES WHICH ARE NOTHING BUT ONLY AND ONLY CHARITABLE IN NATURE. IT IS IRONICAL THAT THE LD CIT HAS OBSERVED THAT THE TRUST IS NOT MEANT FOR CHARITABLE 5 PURPOSES AND THUS EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80G(5 ) IS NOT AVAILABLE TO IT. 5. THAT WHILE PASSING THE ORDER IN QUESTION, THE LD. C IT HAS ALSO OVERLOOKED THE DEFINITION OF SECTION 2(15) UND ER THE INCOME TAX ACT WHEREIN A CHARITABLE PURPOSE HAS BEE N DEFINED. ACCORDING TO THE SAID SECTION, CHARITABLE PURPOSE MEANS (A) RELIEF TO THE POOR; (B) EDUCATION; (C) M EDICAL RELIEF; AND (D) ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY (THE OTHER OBJECT). IF WE HAVE A LOO K AT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST, IT IS MORE THAN CLEAR THAT THE TRUST IS GIVING RELIEF TO POOR AND IS DOING ALL THE ACTIVITI ES WHICH ARE COVERED UNDER THE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSES . THE ORDER OF LD. CIT HOLDING TO THE CONTRARY IS THUS T OTALLY WRONG. 6. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT IS WRONG TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FULFIL THE C ONDITIONS BEFORE MAKING CHANGES IN THE TRUST DEED AND THEREFORE THOS E CHANGES ARE BAD IN LAW AND AS SUCH, THE TRUST IS NOT PROPERLY C ONSTITUTED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (A) THAT AS PER THE EXISTING LAW, THE CHARG E OR ALTERATION IN THE TRUST CAN BE DONE T O THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION SIGNED BY TH E TRUSTEES AND NO AMENDMENT IN THIS REGARD IS TO BE FILED AND ENDORSED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR'S OFFICE. (B) THAT THE LD. CIT HAS NOT CONSIDERED THAT THE TRUST IN QUESTION IS DULY REGISTERED WI TH THE REGISTRAR OF FIRMS AND SOCIETIES UNDER REGISTRATION NO. 675 OF 1997-98. ALL THE FORMALIT IES WITH REGARD TO FORMATION OF THE TRUST ARE DULY FULFILLED AND ON TH E BASIS OF THAT, THE TRUST HAS BEEN REGISTERED BY THE CO NCERNED AUTHORITIES. IT IS NOT FOR THE INCO ME TAX DEPARTMENT TO POINT OUT THE DEFECTS IN CONSTITU TION OF THE TRUST AS UNDER THE CONCERNED LAW, THE TRUST HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE DULY CONSTITUTED. (C) THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT ARE ONLY PROCEDURAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF TAKING AWAY THE ESSENCE OF THE TRUST BEING FOR A CHARITABLE PUR POSE WHICH IS VERY MUCH ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80G( 5). (D) THE LD. CIT WAS ALSO WRONG IN HOLDING THAT TRUST WAS NOT CONSTITUTED PROPERLY WHILE PASSING THE ORDE R FOR EXEMPTION FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008- 09 AND 2010-11 ON THE BASIS OF AN AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT IN THE YEAR 1997 DESPITE THE FACT THAT FOR THE EARLIER YEARS, THE EXEM PTION UNDER SECTION 80G(5) HAS DULY BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE EVEN UP TO THE PERIOD 2007-08. IF THE TRUST HAD NOT BEEN CONSTITUTED PROPERLY, THE QUESTION OF GRANTING THE EXEMPTION EVEN FOR THAT PERIOD WOULD NOT HAVE ARISEN. THE DEP ARTMENT IS NOW ESTOPPED IN LAW FROM RAKING UP THIS ISSUE FOR T HE YEARS IN QUESTIONS. 6 7. THAT THE LD. CIT HAS ALSO FAILED TO CONSIDER THE ASPECT INSOFAR AS THE FUNDS OF THE TRUST IS CONCERNED. IT WAS SPECIFICALLY INFORMED THAT 85% OF THE INCOME OF THE TRUST IS REC EIVED FROM THE CENTRAL AND STATE GOVT. BY WAY OF GRANTS AND EVERY SINGLE PENNY IS FURTHER UTILIZED IN THE CHARITABLE/PUBLIC PURPOS ES AND CANNOT BE ASSUMED TO BE VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, VARY, OMIT OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. THE APPELLANT PR AYS THAT APPROPRIATE RELIEF BE GRANTED BASED ON THE SAID GRO UNDS OF APPEAL AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE CAREFUL LY CIRCUMSPECTED THE ENTIRE AVAILABLE RECORD. IT WAS A GREED BY LD. AR THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL FOR RENEWAL/GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S 80G(5) O F THE ACT, WHICH IS DELAYED BY 11 DAYS DUE TO REASONS MEN TIONED IN THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WHICH IS S UPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT DULY EXECUTED BY IT. IT IS FOUND T HAT THE APPELLANT HAD FILED ITS APPEAL ON 22.12.2011 WITHIN LIMITATION BUT THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS ONLY ONE APPEAL HAD BEEN FILED. TO REMOVE THIS DEF ECT OF FILING THREE SEPARATE APPEALS, THESE APPEALS GOT DE LAYED BY 11 DAYS. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSEE H AS GOT A GOOD REASON FOR THE CONDONATION OF THIS APPEAL. AC CORDINGLY, WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS AND ADMI T THEM AT THEIR ORIGINAL NUMBERS. 7. ON MERITS, THE LD. AR REPEATED ALL THE GROUNDS I N WHICH HE HAS TAKEN REASONS ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH THESE APPE ALS MAY BE ALLOWED. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. CIT-DR HAS REPEATED THE REASONS GIVEN BY LD. COMMISSIONER IN F AVOUR OF REFUSAL OF EXEMPTION SOUGHT BY THE APPELLANT U/S 80 G OF THE ACT. 7 8. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATIONS TO T HE RIVAL STANDS AND HAVE ALSO CIRCUMSPECTED THE ENTIRE RECORD. THE SECTION 80G(5) OF THE ACT, ALONGWITH ITS EXPLAN ATION-3 READ AS UNDER: 80G(5) THIS SECTION APPLIES TO DONATIONS TO ANY IN STITUTION OR FUND REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (IV) OF CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-SECTION (2), ONLY IF IT IS ESTABLISHED IN INDIA FOR A CHARITABLE PURPOSE AND IF IT FULFILS TH E FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, NAMELY : [(I) WHERE THE INSTITUTION OR FUND DERIVES ANY I NCOME, SUCH INCOME WOULD NOT BE LIABLE TO INCLUSION IN ITS TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OR CLAUSE (23AA)] [OR CLAUSE (23C)] OF SECTION 10 : PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN INSTITUTION OR FUND DERIVES ANY INCO ME, BEING PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS, THE CONDITION THAT SUCH INCO ME WOULD NOT BE LIABLE TO INCLUSION IN ITS TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 SHALL NOT APPLY IN RELATION TO SUCH INCOME, IF (A) THE INSTITUTION OR FUND MAINTAINS SEPARATE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF SUCH BUSINESS; (B) THE DONATIONS MADE TO THE INSTITUTION OR FUND ARE NOT USED BY IT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUCH BUSINESS; A ND (C) THE INSTITUTION OR FUND ISSUES TO A PERSON MAK ING THE DONATION A CERTIFICATE TO THE EFFECT THAT IT MAINTAINS SEPARAT E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF SUCH BUSINESS AND THAT THE DONATIONS REC EIVED BY IT WILL NOT BE USED, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, FOR THE PURPOSES OF S UCH BUSINESS;]] (II) THE INSTRUMENT UNDER WHICH THE INSTITUTION OR FUND IS CONSTITUTED DOES NOT, OR THE RULES GOVERNING THE INSTITUTION OR FUND DO N OT, CONTAIN ANY PROVISION FOR THE TRANSFER OR APPLICATION AT ANY TIME OF THE WHOL E OR ANY PART OF THE INCOME OR ASSETS OF THE INSTITUTION OR FUND FOR ANY PURPOSE O THER THAN A CHARITABLE PURPOSE; (III) THE INSTITUTION OR FUND IS NOT EXPRESSED TO BE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY OR CASTE; (IV) THE INSTITUTION OR FUND MAINTAINS REGULAR ACC OUNTS OF ITS RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURE; (V) THE INSTITUTION OR FUND IS EITHER CONSTITUTE D AS A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST OR IS REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 18 60 (21 OF 1860), OR UNDER ANY LAW CORRESPONDING TO THAT ACT IN FORCE IN ANY PART OF INDIA OR UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 (1 OF 1956), OR IS A UNI VERSITY ESTABLISHED BY LAW, OR IS ANY OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION RECOGN ISED BY THE GOVERNMENT OR BY A UNIVERSITY ESTABLISHED BY LAW, OR AFFILIATED TO A NY UNIVERSITY ESTABLISHED BY LAW, OR IS AN INSTITUTION FINANCED WHOLLY OR IN PA RT BY THE GOVERNMENT OR A LOCAL AUTHORITY; 8 [(VI) IN RELATION TO DONATIONS MADE AFTER THE 31S T DAY OF MARCH, 1992, THE INSTITUTION OR FUND IS FOR THE TIME BEING APPROVED BY THE COMMISSIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES MADE IN THIS BEHALF [; AND] [(VII) WHERE ANY INSTITUTION OR FUND HAD BEEN APP ROVED UNDER CLAUSE (VI) FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR BEGINNING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL , 2007 AND ENDING ON THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2008, SUCH INSTITUTION OR FUND S HALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION AND NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN T HE PROVISO TO CLAUSE (15) OF SECTION 2, BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN, (A) ESTABLISHED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES FOR THE PR EVIOUS YEAR BEGINNING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2008 AND ENDING ON THE 31ST D AY OF MARCH, 2009; AND (B) APPROVED UNDER THE SAID CLAUSE (VI) FOR THE PR EVIOUS YEAR BEGINNING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2008 AND ENDING ON THE 31ST D AY OF MARCH, 2009.] EXPLANATION 3.IN THIS SECTION, 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE ' DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY PURPOSE THE WHOLE OR SUBSTANTIALLY THE WHOLE OF WHI CH IS OF A RELIGIOUS NATURE. 9. WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE TRUST STANDS REGISTERED A S A CHARITABLE TRUST U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. IT WAS ALS O GRANTED APPROVAL U/S 80G(5) INITIALLY AND AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THAT PERIOD OF APPROVAL AND AFTER REVISION IN THE CONSTI TUTION OF TRUST BY WAY OF ENLARGEMENT OF TWO MORE TRUSTEES AN D INCREASE IN ITS OBJECTS, AND AFTER GETTING REGISTER ED UNDER THE SOCIETYS ACT, IT HAS APPLIED FOR RENEWAL/GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S 80G OF THE ACT. IN SO FAR AS THE CHANGE BY INC REASE OF ITS TRUSTEES BY WAY OF RESOLUTION IS CONCERNED, IT DOES NOT HAVE MUCH EFFECT ON ITS REGISTRATION IN SO FAR AS I TS OBJECTS CONTINUE TO BE CHARITABLE IN NATURE. THE ADDED AIM /OBJECT OF THIS TRUST, INCORPORATED IN THE ABOVE PORTION OF THIS ORDER, DOES NOT SEEM TO BE WHOLLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY A RELIGIOUS ONE. IT SPEAKS OF PROPAGATING THE GOOD T EACHINGS WITH A EMPHASIS ON TEACHING BENEFIT OF VEGETARIAN F OOD BASED ON TEACHINGS OF ALL RELIGIOUS ICONS INCLUDING SIKH GURUS, IS DEFINITELY A PUBLIC CHARITABLE PURPOSE IN THE CHA NGED SCENARIO OF THE PUBLIC-PATTERN. S. 2(15) OF THE ACT DEFINES 9 CHARITABLE PURPOSE WHICH INCLUDES : I) RELIEF OF THE POOR, II) EDUCATION, MEDICAL RELIEF III) PRESERVATION OF ENVIRONMENT INCLUDING WATERHEADS, FOREST AND WILD, LIFE, IV) PRESERVATION OF MONUMENTS OR PLACES OR OBJECTS OF ARTISTIC OR HISTORIC INTEREST, AND V) THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY, UNLESS IT INVOLVES THE CARRYING ON OF ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION T O ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, FOR A CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE OF USE OR APPLICATION OR RETENTION OF THE INCOME FROM SUCH ACTIVITY. THIS PROVISO IS FURTHER QUALIFIED BY A SECOND PROVISO, WHICH SAYS THAT THE FIRST PROVISO SHALL NOT APPLY IF THE AGGREGATE VALU E OF THE RECEIPTS FROM THE ACTIVITIES IS TEN LAKHS RUPEES OR LESS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THUS, APART FROM GIVING AN INCLUSIVE DEFINITION OF THE TERM CHARITABLE PURPOSE, THE ADDITION TO ITS MEANING B Y WAY OF PROVISOS SHOWS THAT ITS MEANING GOES ON INCREASIN G, RESTRICTED OR RETAINED IN VIEW OF THE GENERAL UNDER STANDING OR REQUIREMENT OF THE PUBLIC CHARITY. THUS, THE MEANING OF PUBLIC-CHARITY GOES ON CHANGING BUT THE MAIN IDEA O F CHARITY REMAINS STATIC. TO PROPAGATE THE MESSAGE, TEACHING , IDEALS AND PHILOSOPHY OF ALL THE RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL R EFORMERS, PROPHETS AND LEADING FIGURES OF THE WORLD INCLUDING SIKH GURUS WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON VEGETARIANISM, IS NO THING BUT A PUBLIC CHARITABLE OBJECT. THE TEACHING OF GURUS WITH A VIEW TO SPREAD VEGETARIAN WAY OF LIFE DEFINITELY SAVES THE 10 WILD LIFE AND WOULD HELP IN PRESERVING ENVIRONMENT. THUS, WITHOUT VIEWING THE MEANING OF THE ABOVE OBJECT FRO M A LIMITED APERTURE WHOSE SIMPLE USE OF THE WORD RELI GION IS TAKEN ON OTHERWISE IS UNFORTUNATE. IT IS THE RELIG ION WHICH TEACHES ONE AND ALL THE WAY OF LIFE. HOW, ONE COUL D LIVE PHYSICALLY, MENTALLY AND SOCIALLY HAPPY AND PROSPER OUS, IS TAUGHT BY ONE AND ALL RELIGION. SO, IT IS RELIGION IN THAT WIDER SENSE OF ITS MEANING AND NOT IN THE WAY OF LI MITED MEANING OF SEGMENTALIZATION OF SOCIETY AND CREATING A DIVIDE IN THE SOCIETY. THUS, THE ABOVE OBJECT IS FOR PUBL IC CHARITY AND IS NOT LIMITED TO A PARTICULAR CLASS OR BELIEVE R IN A PARTICULAR SECTION. HENCE, THE DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN UPPER GANGES SUGAR MILLS LTD. (SUPRA) WILL NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. THEREFORE, WE DIR ECT LD. COMMISSIONER TO GRANT APPROVAL TO THE APPELLANT TRU ST U/S 80G(5) AS IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY IT. 10. IN THE RESULT, WE ALLOW ALL THE APPEALS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH APRIL,2013. SD/- SD/- (N.K.SAINI) (HARI OM MARATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 16 TH APRIL,2013. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH