Aranyashwar Devalaya Trust, Pune V. CIT-I, Pune

ITA 1489/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2213 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-06-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 17-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MODI P SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: D Y PANDIT
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Charitable institution; Source of fund
• Section: 80G

Judgement Text

] IQ.KS IQ.KS IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE !' # BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM / ITA NO.1489/PN/2013 ARANYASHWAR DEVALAYA TRUST, C/O. MR. D.Y. PANDIT ADV., 1187/10, KRUPA, SHIVAJINAGAR, PUNE 411006 PAN NO.AAATA5591N . / APPELLANT VS. CIT-1, PUNE . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SMT. DEEPA KHARE & SHRI D.Y. PANDIT / DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI A.K. MODI P. SINGH $ / ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 10-05-2013 OF THE CIT-I, PUNE REJECTING THE REQ UEST FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S.80G OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE T RUST VIDE AN APPLICATION IN FORM NO.10G REQUESTED FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S.80G / DATE OF HEARING : 18.06.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17.08.2015 2 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAD BEEN REGISTERE D UNDER THE BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUSTS ACT, 1950 VIDE AN ORDER DATED 28-1 0-1952 AND ALSO REGISTERED U/S.12A OF THE I.T. ACT VIDE CERTIFICATE OF R EGISTRATION ISSUED BY THE CIT-II, PUNE ON 27-09-2009. IT MAY BE P ERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAD NEVER APPLIED FOR A PPROVAL U/S.80G PRIOR TO MAKING THE SAID APPLICATION. 3. THE LD.CIT AFTER RECEIVING THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO.10 G ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY ITS REQUEST FOR APPROVAL U/S.80G SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED SINCE ITS OBJECTS AS WELL AS ACTIVITIES ARE PREDOMINANTLY RELIGIOUS AND SINCE THE RELIGIOUS EXPENSE S IN ALL THE 3 YEARS IN RESPECT OF WHICH STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS H AVE BEEN SUBMITTED EXCEEDED 5% OF THE TOTAL INCOME/RECEIPTS WHICH IS VIOLATIVE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (5B) OF SECTION 80G OF THE I.T. ACT. 4. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31-03-2012, THE DETAILS OF DONATIONS RECEIVED DURING THE S AID YEAR, COPY OF CHANGE REPORT SUBMITTED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CHARIT Y COMMISSIONER ETC. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE MAIN OBJECT S OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST ARE TO MAINTAIN THE TEMPLE OF LORD ARANY ESHWAR WHICH IS OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA, TO PERFORM P OOJA OF THE LORD AND TO CELEBRATE VARIOUS UTSAVS. THE LD. CIT NOT ED THAT THE TRUST DEED HAS A FEW CHARITABLE OBJECTS TOO. HOWEVER, THE MAIN SOURCES OF INCOME OF THE APPLICANT TRUST ARE POOJAS AND UTSAVAS AND THE NET INCOME IS USED FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE TEMPLE BUILDING. 5. ON BEING CONFRONTED BY THE LD.CIT IT WAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE RELIGIOUS EXPENSES DURING THE YEAR ENDED 31-03-2010, 31- 03-2011 AND 31-03-2012 WERE IN EXCESS OF THE 5% OF THE TOTAL R ECEIPTS IS PRIMA-FACIE CORRECT, HOWEVER, THE RELIGIOUS EXPENSES WOULD N OT EXCEED 5% IF THE HONORARIUM GIVEN TO THE BRAHMINS IS EXCLUDED. WIT HOUT 3 PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE APPLICANT TRUST DOES NOT PERTAIN TO ANY PARTICULAR SECT AND THE TEMPLE IS OPEN FOR EVERYONE IRRESPECTIVE OF RELIGION, CASTE, CREED OR SEX. THE DECISION OF THE PANAJI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI GURU DEV RANADE SAMADHI TRUST VS. CIT, BELGAUM VIDE ITA NO.155/PNJ/2011 O RDER DATED 24-12-2012 WAS RELIED UPON IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HE LD THAT HINDU IS NEITHER A RELIGION NOR A COMMUNITY AND CONSTRUCTIO N OF TEMPLE CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY. 6. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ARGUMEN TS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REJECTED THE APPLICATION SEEKING APPROVAL U/S.80G(5) BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 4. AFTER CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPLICANT DURING THE COURSE OF THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS, THE SUBJE CT APPLICATION IN FORM NO.10G IS DISPOSED OF AS UNDER :- 4.1 THE APPLICANT HAS FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT THE REL IGIOUS / POOJA EXPENSES INCURRED BY IT DURING THE THREE YEARS UNDER C ONSIDERATION HAVE BEEN IN EXCESS OF 5% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF THE CONCERNED YEARS. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT HAS SOUGHT TO MAKE OUT A CASE T HAT THE HONORARIUM PAID TO THE BRAHMINS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED. I AM AFRAID, THE PLEA THUS RAISED BY THE APPLICANT IS DEVOID OF MERIT. IT CANNOT BE GAINSAID THAT HONORARIUM IS PAID TO THE BRAHMINS FOR PERFORMIN G THE POOJAS AND OTHER RELATED ACTIVITIES. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE HO NORARIUM THUS PAID CANNOT BE DISASSOCIATED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ACTIVITI ES; HENCE WOULD PARTAKE OF THE COLOUR OF THE RELIGIOUS. FOR THE SAME REASON, AND AS THE RELIGIOUS EXPENSES IN ALL THREE YEARS FAR EXCEED 5% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF EACH YEAR, THERE IS CLEAR CONTRAVENTION OF THE PR OVISIONS OF SUB- SECTION (5B) OF SECTION 80G. AS A RESULT, THE APPLICANT TRUST IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF APPROVAL U/S.80G OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. IT MAY BE PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT WHILE IN I TS REPLY THE APPLICANT HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION ONLY THE POOJA EXPENSES, THE OTHER EXPENSES SHOWN AS INCURRED ON THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST WO ULD ALSO HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AS RELIGIOUS EXPENSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUB-SECTION (5B) OF SECTION 80G INASMUCH AS THE ACTIVITIES OF THE A PPLICANT TRUST DURING THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVE BEEN EXCLUSI VELY RELIGIOUS ONLY. 5. REFERENCE HAS BEEN ALREADY MADE TO THE APPLICANT 'S RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI GURUDEV RANADE SAMADHI TRUST VS. CIT, BELGAUM. I AM AFRAID, THE ABO VE RELIANCE IS A MISPLACED ONE. IN THE CITED CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CA RRIED OUT ANY RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY. IT ALSO DID NOT HAVE ANY TEMPLE. ITS OBJECTS WERE TO COMMEMORATE THE SACRED MEMORY OF SHRI GURUDEV RANADE AND TO SPREAD HIS SPIRITUAL TEACHINGS BY PUBLISHING ARTICLES AND BOOK S, BY ARRANGING LECTURES AND SEMINARS ETC. THUS, THE FACTS IN THE CITED CASE WERE FULLY 4 DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE. HENCE, THE CITED DECISION WOULD NOT APPLY. 6. FOR THE DETAILED REASONS STATED HEREINABOVE, AND I N PARTICULARS AS THE APPLICANT TRUST HAS CONTRAVENED THE PROVISIONS OF SU B-SECTION (5B) OF SECTION 80G OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, ITS APPLICAT ION IN FORM NO.10G SEEKING APPROVAL U/S.80G(5) IS HEREBY REJECTED. 7. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE LD.CIT ERRED IN REJECTING THE ASSESSEES APPLICA TION FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S.80G OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. REASONS ASSIGNED FOR REJECTION ARE WRONG, INSUFFICIEN T AND CONTRARY TO LAW & FACTS. 3. THE APPLICANT MAY BE PERMITTED TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR ADD A NEW GROUND OF APPEA L ANY TIME BEFORE THE HEARING OF APPEAL OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARIN G OF APPEAL. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY OPPOSED T HE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A R ELIGIOUS TRUST AT ALL AND THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT PROPAGATE ANY PARTICU LAR RELIGION. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF UMAID CHARITABLE TRUST VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHER S REPORTED IN 307 ITR 226 SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT HINDUISM IS NOT ONE PART ICULAR RELIGION. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PROPAGATING ANY RELIGION. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEG E, LUDHIANA SOCIETY VS. CIT VIDE ITA NO.620/CHD/12 REPORTED IN 157 TTJ 83, A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PA GE 8 SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID DECISION HAS ALLOWED GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S.80G(5) TO SOCIETY WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED AND RUN BY A MINORITY CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY WHERE THE AIM AND OBJECT OF T HE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS TO TRAIN PROFESSIONALS IN THE FIELD OF MEDICAL AND 5 HEALTH CARE IN THE SPIRIT OF JESUS CHRIST AND TO PROVIDE MEDICAL FACILITIES IN THEIR HOSPITALS TO ALL PERSONS OF ANY CASTE, CREED , RACE, RELIGION ETC. IN HER ALTERNATE CONTENTION, THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PAGE 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH W AS ADDRESSED TO THE ITO, TECHNICAL VIDE LETTER DATED 23-03-2013 AND DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE FOLLOWING CHART OF ACTUAL POO JA EXPENSES FOR LAST 3 YEARS : SR.NO. ASST. YEAR TOTAL RECEIPTS POOJA EXPENSES LESS HONORARIUM PAID TO BRAHMINS ACTUAL POOJA EXPENSES 5% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS 1 2012-13 1035551 54688 15325 39363 51778 2 2011-12 854469 54145 13900 40245 42723 3 2010-11 907408 52079 14165 37914 45370 9. REFERRING TO THE ABOVE CHART SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONORARIUM PAID TO THE BRAHMINS IS NOT THE EXPENDITURE O F THE ASSESSEE BUT IS THE EXPENDITURE OF THE PERSON VISITING THE TEMPLE. IT IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITY PROVIDED TO THE VISITORS. THEREF ORE, IF THE SAME IS EXCLUDED FROM THE POOJA EXPENSES, THEN THE EXPE NDITURE OF POOJA EXPENSES IS LESS THAN THE 5% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS . SHE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT BOTH FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY TH E ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO GET THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80G(5). SHE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE NAGPUR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE O F SHIV MANDIR DEVASTAN PANCH COMMITTEE SANSTAN VS. CIT REPORT ED IN 150 TTJ 452 (NAGPUR). 10. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER H AND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST ARE RELIGIOUS IN NATURE. T HE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST ARE MIXED. HOWEVER, THE BRAHMINS HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED FOR POOJA ETC. FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE DEVASTHAN. THEREFORE, THE EXPENSES OF HONORARIUM TO THE BRAHMINS CANNOT BE EXCLU DED FROM 6 THE POOJA EXPENSES. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT TH E ORDER OF THE CIT BEING IN ORDER SHOULD BE UPHELD. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOT H THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT AND THE PAPER BO OK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIO US DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND THE LD.CIT IN THE INSTANT CASE R EJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S.80G ON THE GROUND TH AT THE OBJECTS AS WELL AS ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST ARE PREDOMINANT LY RELIGIOUS AND THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SU B-SECTION (5B) OF SECTION 80G BY INCURRING RELIGIOUS/POOJA EXPENSES IN EXC ESS OF 5% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF THE CONCERNED YEAR. 12. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A RELIGIOUS TRUST AT ALL AND THE ASSESSE E DOES NOT PROPAGATE ANY PARTICULAR RELIGION. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO THE C ONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE HONORARIUM PA ID TO THE BRAHMINS IS NOT EXPENDITURE OF THE ASSESSEE BUT IS THE E XPENDITURE OF THE PERSONS VISITING THE TEMPLE AND IT IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITY PROVIDED TO THE VISITORS. THEREFORE, IF THE SAME IS EXCLUDE D FROM THE POOJA EXPENSES THEN THE EXPENDITURE OF POOJA EXPENSES IS LESS THAN 5% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS. 13. WE FIND SOME MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. NOWHERE IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT BY THE LD.CIT THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES PROPAGATE ANY PARTICULA R RELIGION AND IT IS MEANT ONLY FOR A PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY. THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE A PPELLANT TRUST DOES NOT PERTAIN TO ANY PARTICULAR SECT AND THE TEMPLE IS OPEN FOR EVERYONE IRRESPECTIVE OF RELIGION, CASTE, CREED OR SECT COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. F URTHER, THE LD.CIT HAS ALSO GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE TRUST DEED HAS A FEW 7 CHARITABLE OBJECTS ALSO. WHEN THE MAIN SOURCE OF THE IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS POOJA AND UTSAVS AND THE INCOME IS U SED FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE TEMPLE BUILDING, THE SALARY PAID TO THE B RAHMINS, IN OUR OPINION, SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF POOJA EXPENSES UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THEREFORE , IF THE SAME IS EXCLUDED FROM THE POOJA EXPENSES, THE TOTAL EXPENDITUR E ON POOJA/RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES WILL NOT EXCEED 5% OF THE TOTAL RECE IPTS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AS PER THE CHART AT PARA 8 OF THIS ORD ER. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT THE TEMPLE IS OWNED BY THE GOVER NMENT OF MAHARASHTRA TO PERFORM POOJA OF LORD ARYANASHWAR AND TO CELEBRATE VARIOUS UTSAVS AND THE TRUST HAS ALSO BEEN REGISTERED U/S.12A OF THE I.T. ACT. 14. WE FIND THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF UMAIN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. UNION OF INDIA REPORTED IN 307 ITR 22 6 HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER (SHORT NOTES) : THE LINE OF DISTINCTION BETWEEN RELIGIOUS PURPOSES AND CHARITABLE PURPOSES IS VERY THIN AND NO WATERTIGHT COMPARTMENT BE TWEEN THE TWO ACTIVITIES CAN BE ESTABLISHED. UNLESS THE OBJECTIVE OF T HE CHARITABLE TRUST IN QUESTION ITSELF IS TO SPEND ITS INCOME FOR A PARTICU LAR 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 INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961, MERELY BECAUSE ONE PARTICULAR EXPENDI TURE IS FOR AN ACTIVITY WHICH MAY BE TERMED AS SPENDING FOR A PARTIC ULAR RELIGION. A CERTIFICATE WAS GRANTED APPROVING THE PETITIONER-T RUST UNDER SECTION 80G FOR A PERIOD FROM APRIL 1, 2001, TO MARCH 31, 2 004. ON AN APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF THE APPROVAL IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM, THE COMMISSIONER HELD THAT THE TRUST WAS NOT ENTITLED TO APPROVAL ON T HE GROUND THAT IT HAD INCURRED EXPENDITURE EXCEEDING FIVE PER CENT, OF IT S TOTAL INCOME OF THE YEAR 2004 ON A PARTICULAR RELIGION. ON A WRIT PETIT ION AGAINST THE REFUSAL TO RENEW THE APPROVAL. HELD, ALLOWING THE PETITION, THAT THERE WAS NO CLAUSE IN THE PETITIONER'S TRUST DEED WHICH INDICATED THAT INCOME OF THE PETITI ONER-TRUST WAS TO K APPLIED WHOLLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY FOR ANY PARTICULAR R ELIGION. NOTHING HAD BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER THA T THE PETITIONER- TRUST HAD BEEN CONSTANTLY SPENDING MONEY FOR A PARTICU LAR RELIGION. A SINGLE CONTRIBUTION BY THE CHARITABLE TRUST TO ANOTHE R TRUST WHICH CARRIED OUT REPAIR AND RENOVATION OF LORD VISHNU'S TEMPLE DID NOT DISENTITLE THE PETITIONER-TRUST FROM RENEWAL OF ITS EXEMPTION CERTIF ICATE UNDER SECTION 80G. THE REPAIR AND RENOVATION OF THE TEMPLE DID NO T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION WAS FOR A PARTICULAR RELIGION ONLY. ALL PEOPLE WHO HAVE FAITH IN LORD VISHNU'S TEMPLE BELONG TO DIFFERENT SECTS 8 AND HAVE FAITH IN DIFFERENT RELIGIONS AND ALSO VISIT SU CH TEMPLE OF LORD VISHNU. THE REVENUE HAD NOT SHOWN THAT ENTRY TO THE T EMPLE WAS RESTRICTED TO PERSONS OF ONE PARTICULAR COMMUNITY OR SE CT PRACTISING ONE RELIGION. HINDUISM IS NOT ONE PARTICULAR RELIGION AND DIFFERENT SECTS FOLLOWING HINDU PHILOSOPHY DO VISIT TEMPLES OF THE LO RD VISHNU, BE THEY JAINS, SIKHS, BRAHMINS, ETC. THERE IS NO WATERTIGHT COM PARTMENT BETWEEN DIFFERENT CASTES OR SECTS FOLLOWING ONE PARTICULAR RELI GION. RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION IS GUARANTEED IN THE CONSTITUTION UNDER ARTICLE 25. THEREFORE, THE REVENUE COULD NOT TAKE SUCH A PEDANTI C AND NARROW APPROACH THAT THE CHARACTER OF THE CHARITABLE TRUST WAS LOST IF ONE PARTICULAR EXPENDITURE WAS MADE FOR REPAIR AND RENOV ATION OF LORD VISHNU'S TEMPLE AND THAT TOO BY WAY OF CONTRIBUTION T O ANOTHER TRUST. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER WAS SET ASIDE AND THE PETITIONER-TRUST SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE REGISTERED UNDE R SECTION 80G THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD AFTER APRIL I, 2004, WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS. 15. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST ARE NOT ENTIRELY RELIGIOUS AND SINCE SOME OF THE OBJECTS ARE CHA RITABLE IN NATURE, A FINDING GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT HIMSELF AND SINCE THE TEMPLE IS OPEN TO EVERYBODY IRRESPECTIVE OF CASTE, CREED, SECT, COLO UR ETC. AND SINCE THERE IS NO RESTRICTION OF ENTRY OF ANY PARTICULAR CO MMUNITY AND SINCE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF THE HONORARIUM PAID TO TH E BRAHMINS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS EXCLUDED, THEN THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION 5B OF SECTION 80G, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST IN THE INSTAN T CASE SHOULD NOT BE DENIED THE BENEFIT OF GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S.80G OF T HE I.T. ACT. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT AND DIREC T HIM TO GRANT APPROVAL U/S.80G OF THE I.T. ACT. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACC ORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17-08-2015. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( R.K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IQ.KS PUNE ; DATED : 17 TH AUGUST, 2015. LRH'K 9 $%&''( ) *' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ! -I, IQ.KS / THE CIT-I, PUNE 4 . '#$ %%&' , &' , ) IQ.KS / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; 5 . $*+ , / GUARD FILE. . / BY ORDER , ' % //TRUE COPY// ' % //TRUE COPY// /01 %2 &3 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY &' , IQ.KS / ITAT, PUNE