M/s Kund Kund Pravchan Prasar Sansthan, V. The C I T,

ITA 180/IND/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0048 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 05-08-2009
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K SINGEE ACIT
• Keywords: Gift; Charitable institution
• Section: 12A; 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE SMC-II BENCH, INDORE . BEFORE SHRI M.LGUSIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I.T.A.NO. 180/IND/2009 UNDER SECTION 12A/12AA KUND KUND PRAVCHAN PRASAR SANSTHAN CHIMANGANJ MANDI, UJJAIN. (PAN NO. AAATK-6588R) (APPEL LANT) VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UJJAIN. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAKASH JAIN, CA. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.K.SINGEE, ACIT, DR ORDER THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE UNDER SECTION 12A/12AA OF THE ITACT 1961 DATED 19.02.2009 PASSED BY THE CIT UJJAIN. 2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSION AND ALSO THE PAPER BOOK FURNISHED BY THE LD. AR. 2 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THREE GROUNDS OF APPEAL H OWEVER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE WE FIRST DISCUSS GROUND NO 3 WHICH READS AS UNDER. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE LD. CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE TRUST HAS FILED ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR REGISTRAT ION U/S 12AA ON 23.03.2001 AND AS SAME WAS NOT DECIDED WITH IN 6 MONTHS THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEE N GRANTED REGISTRATION AND AS THE SAID APPLICATION W AS UNDISPOSED OFF TILL JULY, 2008, THEREFORE, AS A REM INDER AND FOR THE CONVENIENCE AND AS PER THE ADVICE OF TH E LD. A.O. WHO IS ASSESSING THE TRUST, THE TRUST HAS ENCL OSED AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION IN FORM-10A ALONGWI TH THE ENCLOSURES FOR CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION FILED ON 23.03.2001 WHICH WAS NEITHER REJECTED NOR REGISTRATION IS GRANTED, THUS AS PER T HE SECTION 12AA (2) DEEMED REGISTRATION IS GRANTED TO THE TRUST. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST FI LED AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A/12AA OF THE ITACT. ON 19.08.2008 BEFORE CIT UJJAIN WITH A COVERING LETTER STATING THAT IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED REGISTRATION W.E.F. 1.4.2000 AS T HE ASSESSEE HAD ORIGINALLY APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION TO CIT BHOPAL O N 23 RD MARCH 2001 AS THE JURISDICTION OF UJJAIN WAS UNDER CIT BHOPAL AT THAT TIME. THE SAID APPLICATION COULD NOT BE DISPOSED OF TILL DAT E. THE NEW POST OF CIT UJJAIN WAS CREATED W.E.F. 1.6.2001 THEREFORE TH E TRUST FILED ANOTHER APPLICATION ON 30.04.2003 REQUESTING FOR IS SUE OF 3 REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE AND ALSO ENCLOSED COPY OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION OF REGISTRATION MADE TO BEFORE CIT APPE AL. 5. ACCORDING TO CIT UJJAIN IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THA T THE CIT UJJAIN VIDE ORDER DATED 10.06.2003 HAS FILED THE APPLICATI ON OF THE TRUST DATED 30.04.03 AND THE SAID ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY T HE APPLICANT TRUST. IN CASE APPLICANT TRUST WAS NOT SATISFIED WI TH THE ORDER OF CIT UJJAIN DATED 10.06.2003, IT COULD HAVE FILED AN APP EAL AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF IT ACT. INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT IT W AS CLEARLY WRITTEN IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE THEN CIT UJJAIN THAT IF THE ASSESSEE WANTS TO GET REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT., IT SHOULD FILE A FRESH APPLICATION WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED AS PER T HE PROVISIONS OF LAW. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT TRUST DECIDED TO KEEP S ILENT AND DID NOT TAKE ANY ACTION FOR FILING A FRESH APPLICATION FOR LAST MORE THEN FIVE YEARS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE APPLICATION DA TED 30.04.02003 CANNOT BE REVIVED NOW FROM THE BACK DATE AS THE OR DER DATED 10.06.2003 BECAME FINAL AS THE APPLICANT TRUST DID NOT FILE ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE APPLICATION DATED 23.03.2001 CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN F ILED BEFORE CIT BHOPAL, IT IS NOTED FROM PAGE 11 OF THE FIRST PAPER BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THOUGH THE SAID APPLICATION IS ADDRES SED TO CIT BHOPAL BUT THE SAME WAS SUBMITTED IN THE OFFICE OF THE DCI T CIRCLE I 4 (ADMIN) UJJAIN AS IS APPARENT FROM THE ACKNOWLEDGEM ENT SEAL APPARENT ON THE ABOVE APPLICATION. FROM THE ABOVE I T IS NOTED THAT THE APPLICATION WAS NOT FILED TO THE CONCERNED AUTH ORITY WHILE AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12A(1)(A) AND 12AA OF THE IT ACT. THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX BHOPAL. SINCE THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION HAS NOT BEEN FILED TO THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY THEREFORE THE CIT UJJAIN H AS CONSIDERED THE FRESH APPLICATION DATED 19.08.2008 FILED BEFORE HER . HENCE THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION W.E.F. 01.04.2001 HAS RIGHTLY BEEN REJ ECTED BY THE CIT UJJAIN. THUS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. THE FIRST AND SECOND GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS U NDER- 1. THAT IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UJJAIN IS BAD IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS. IT IS BASED ON INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF LAW AND THE FACTS HAVE ALSO BEEN INCORRECTLY CONSTRUED. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA BY STATING THE FACTS THAT THE OBJECT OF THE APPLICANT TRUST AR E NOT FULLY RELIGIOUS OR CHARITABLE AND ONE OF THE OBJECT IS NEITHER A RELIGIOUS OR CHARITABLE. 7. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ON GOING THROUGH THE TRUST DEED THE CIT NOTED THAT SOME OF THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST IS RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE BOTH FOR THE BENEFIT OF PARTICULAR COMMU NITY AND OBJECT 5 NO. 5 IS NEITHER RELIGIOUS NOR CHARITABLE. THEREFOR E, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13 (1)(B) OF THE ACT ARE CLEARLY APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT TRUST. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE CIT DENI ED REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A/12AA OF THE ACT. 8. AS PER THE ORDER OF THE CIT, THE TRUST HAS FOLLO WING OBJECTS (TRANSLATED BY THE LD. AR)- 1. TO ORGANIZE RELIGIOUS TEACHING CAMPS FOR PUBLICITY OF JAIN FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS & JJAIN PHILOSOPHY IN THE COUNTRY & FOREIGN COUNTRIES ALSO. 2. BY ORGANIZING CAMP FOR DIGAMBAR JAIN PHILOSOPHY & ITS CODE OF CONDUCT WILL BE TAUGHT WHICH WAS PROPOUNDED BY LORD MAHAVIRA & IN HIS TRADITION ACHARYA SHRI KUND-KUND SWAMI, SHRI UMASWAMI, SHRISAMANT BHADRACHARYAJI, PANDIT SHRI TODARMALJI, PANDIT SHRI BANASRSIDASJI ETC. GREAT PERSONALITIES & WHICH WAS INTERPRETED BY VENERABLE HOLY PERSON KANJI SWAMIJI IN PRESENT. IN THIS WAY, ACCORDING TO ALL OF THEM THEIR DEVOTTE, LEARNED PERSONS WILL MAKE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE KNOWN BY THEIR SPEECH, TEACHING, CONFERENCE, DISCUSSION, READING. 3. THE BENEFIT OF THE CAMPS ORGANIZED WILL BE PROVIDED TO JAIN & ALL NON JAIN COMMUNITY OF THE WORLD. 4. TO HELP OTHER INSTITUTIONS ESTABLISHED FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE SAID PURPOSES & TO TAKE HELP FROM OTHER INSTITUTIONS FOR THIS INSTITUTION IN CASE OF NEED. 5. CHILDREN CAN BE TAUGHT SACRAMENT SO CHILD SACRAMENT CAMPS TO BE ORGANIZED & REQUIRED 6 JAIN LITERATURE TO BE PRINTED FOR THE PURPOSE. 6. TO DISCOVER NEW DIMENSIONS & POSSIBILITIES FOR PHILOSOPHY PUBLICITY & TO IMPLEMENT THEM. 7. TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL HELP IN PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES TO THOSE WHO HAVE FAITH IN KUND-KUND SWAMI & SPECIAL LEARNED. 8. TO HELP FROM TRUST INCOME IN HOSPITALITY OF CO-RELIGIOUS PEOPLE & FOR THEIR HELP. 9. TO ESTABLISH & GET ESTABLISHED SCHOOL & COLLEGE, SCHOOL FOR RELIGIOUS TEACHING, TO CONSTRUCT OR GET CONSTRUCTED BUILDING FOR THE PURPOSE & TO MANAGE & RUN THEM SO AS TO PREPARE GOOD CULTURED CHILDREN IN THE COMMUNITY. 10. TO PUBLISH & GET PUBLISH RELIGIOUS BOOK & TO COLLECT REQUIRED FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR THE SAME. 11. TO PROVIDE & GET PROVIDED FINANCIAL HELP TO THE FINANCIAL WEAKER CLASS MEN & WOMEN, MALE & FEMALE PERTAINING CELIBACY, SO THAT THEY COULD DO RELIGIOUS DEVOTION ENTIRELY. 12. (A) TO ESTABLISH & GET ESTALIBHED HOMEOPATHIC & AYURVEDIC HOSPITAL & TO RUN & GET THEM RUN. (B) TO ORGANIZED & GET ORGANIZED CAMPS OF TREATMENT. 13. TO DO OTHER SUCH WORKS WHICH ARE TO BE DECIDED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TIME TO TIME ACCORDING TO TIME & CIRCUMSTANCES & WHICH BELONG TO SERVICE OF NATION & HUMAN. TO DO SUCH WORK FOR HUMAN BEINGS. 7 9. THE CIT HAS MADE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ON THE OBJEC TS OF THE TRUST AS UNDER- OBJECT NO. COMMENTS OF LD. CIT 1 TO 4 ARE IN THE NATURE OF HAVING ACTIVITIES OF PROPAGATION OF JAIN RELIGION WHICH WILL BENEFIT OTHER PUBLIC ALSO IN ADDITION TO SPECIALLY DIGAMBER JAIN. 5 IS PROVIDING GOOD MORAL VALUE TO THE CHILDREN AND PUBLISHING JAIN LITERATURE FOR THE SAME. THIS OBJECT IS NEITHER A RELIGIOUS NOR A CHARITABLE OBJECT. 6 TO FIND OUT NEW WAYS AND MEANS TO FIND OUT AND PROPAGATE THE JAIN RELIGION ESSENTIALS/ SUBSTANCE. 7 & 8 NOTED ABOVE IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF PERSONS HAVING FAITH IN KUND KUND SWAMY I.E. IT IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF PEOPLE BELONGING TO PARTICULAR COMMUNITY. 9 IS ESTABLISHING SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES FOR PROVIDING RELIGIOUS EDUCATION SO THAT THE GOOD CHARACTER CAN BE FORMED IN THE PERSONS WHICH IS CHARITABLE IN NATURE. 10 I.E. PUBLICATION OF RELIGIOUS BOOKS IS AGAIN CHARITABLE IN NATURE 11 IS TO GIVE ECONOMIC HELP TO WEAKER SECTION OF MEN AND WOMEN ETC. IS AGAIN A CHARITABLE OBJECT. 12 IS PURELY CHARITABLE IN NATURE AND IS FOR ALL. 10. THE LD. CIT IN HER ORDER HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF GANGA BAI CHARITIES 197 ITR 416 (SC), SHAADI MAHAL TRUST 254 ITR 212 (SC), GULAM MOHIDDIN TRUST 248 ITR 587 (J&K) CIT VS. BARKATE SAIFYAH SOCIETY 213 ITR 492 (GUJ.) AND CIV VS. CHAN DRA CHARITABLE TRUST 294 ITR 86 (GUJ.). 8 11. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE US WE NO TED THAT THE LD.CIT HAS MISCONCEIVED THE DECISION OF GANGA BAI CHARITIES 197 ITR 416 (SC). IN THE THAT CASE THE FACTS WERE THAT THE TRUST DEED DID NOT SPECIFY THE OBJECTS IN SPECIFIC TERMS, BUT STAT ED THAT TRUST PROPERTY WAS TO BE USED ONLY FOR CHARITABLE, RELIG IOUS, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL PURPOSES. THE TRUSTEES WERE EMPOWERED TO L ET OUT (FREE OF COST OR AT A REASONABLE RENT) THE TRUST PROPERTY FO R THE USE OF THE PUBLIC FOR SOCIAL, CULTURAL, RELIGIOUS AND EDUCATIO NAL PURPOSES. THE BUILDING WAS LET OUT AS A MARRIAGE MANDAPAM FOR WHI CH THE TRUST RECEIVED SUBSTANTIAL RENT. THE TRUST WAS ALSO EARN ING A SIZABLE INCOME FROM RUNNING A PRINTING PRESS. THE COURT OB SERVED THAT IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO CULL OUT IN CLEAR TERMS ANY SPE CIFIC CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS OBJECT FROM THE TRUST DEED. THE OBJECTS REFERRED TO IN THE TRUST DEED WERE NOT AVOWED AS THE OBJECTS OF THE TR UST BUT WERE ONLY THE OBJECTS OF THOSE WHO WISHED TO PUT THE TRU ST PROPERTY TO USE. THERE WAS NO MENTION AS TO HOW THE INCOME DER IVED FROM THE TRUST PROPERTY WAS TO BE UTILIZED. THE TRUST WAS T HEREFORE NOT GRANTED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE IT ACT. WHILE IN THE APPELLANTS CASE THE TRUST DEED CLEARLY PROVIDE CHI LDREN CAN BE TAUGHT SACRAMENT SO CHILD SACRAMENT CAMPS TO BE ORG ANIZED AND REQUIRED JAIN LITERATURE TO BE PRINTED FOR THE PURP OSE. THUS THE 9 CONTENTION OF THE LD. CIT FOR REJECTING THE APPLIC ATION FOR REGISTRATION ON THIS GROUND IS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE IN THE TRUST DEED SPECIFIC OBJECT IS GIVEN WHILE IN THE CASE OF GANGA BAI CHARITIES NO SPECIFIC OBJECT CLARIFYING THE MEANING HAVE BEEN GI VEN. 12. THE ANOTHER GROUND FOR REJECTION OF APPLICATION WAS MENTIONED BY THE LD.CIT IS THAT CERTAIN OBJECT OF T HE TRUST ARE RELIGIOUS AND CERTAIN OBJECTS ARE CHARITABLE, THUS IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T V PALGHAT SHADI MAHAL TRUST (2002) 254 ITR 212 WHICH CAME AFT ER THE DECISION OF BARKATE SAIFYIYAH SOCIETY 213 ITR 492 (GUJ.), PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(B) ARE CLEARLY APPLICABLE HENCE THE T RUST IS NOT ENTITLED FOR REGISTRATION. IN THE CASE OF CHANDRA C HARITABLE TRUST 294 ITR 86 (GUJ.), THE HONBLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT HAS FOL LOWED THEIR EARLIER DECISION IN THE CASE OF BARKATE SAIFYIYAH S OCIETY AND DID NOT CONSIDER THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF PALGHAT SHADI MAHAL TRUST (SUPRA) 12. WHILE APPLYING THE DECISION OF SUPREME COURT R EPORTED IN THE CASE OF CIT V PALGHAT SHADI MAHAL TRUST (2002) 254 ITR 212, THE LD. CIT MISCONCEIVED THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. WH AT IS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THIS CASE IS AS UNDER; 10 REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT, (I) THAT THE RESOLUTION DATED APRIL, 20, 1975, DID NOT DECIDE T HE MEANING AND SCOPE OF A CLAUSE OF THE TRUST DEED BUT HAD THE EFF ECT OF ALTERING THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST DEED, WHICH COULD BE DONE O NLY BY MEANS OF AN AMENDMENT OF THE TRUST DEED BY THE SETTLORS; (II) THAT THERE WAS NO LIMITATION IN THE TRUST DEE D IN REGARD TO WHICH MUSLIMS COULD AVAIL OF THE BENEFIT OF THE TRU ST. THE BENEFIT WAS AVAILABLE TO MUSLIMS ALL OVER THE WORLD, NONE O F WHOM, EXCEPT IN KERALA, WERE OF BACKWARD CLASSES. IT IS THEREFOR E NOT POSSIBLE TO ACCEPT THE VIEW TAKEN BY HIGH COURT AND TRIBUNAL TH AT THE TRUST IS COVERED BY THE SECOND EXPLANATION TO SEC. 13. THERE FORE, THE TRUST ATTRACTS THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 13(1)(B) AND IS NO T ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11. 12.2 FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE EXEMPTION IN THAT CASE WAS DENIED BY THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE REASON THAT NO AMENDMENT WAS MADE IN THE TRUST DEED AND SECONDLY THAT THOUGH THE TRUST PROVIDES BENEFIT TO BACKWARD CLASS OF MUSLIMS ALL O VER THE WORLD, NONE OF WHOM, EXCEPT IN KERLA, ARE OF BACKWARD CLAS SES AND THUS THERE IS NO LIMITATION IN THE TRUST DEED AND NOT K NOWN HOW THE BENEFIT OF TRUST COULD BE PROVIDED TO ALL MUSLIMS OF THE WORLD. 11 13. THE LD.CIT ALSO ERRED IN STATING THE FACT THA T THE DECISION OF PALGHAT SHADI MAHAL TRUST COME AFTER THE DECISION OF CHANDRA CHARITABLE TRUST. IN FACT THE DECISION OF CHANDRA CHARITABLE TRUST IS DATED 31 ST JULY, 2006 WHILE THE DECISION OF PLAGHAT SHADI MAH AL TRUST IS DATED 19 TH JULY, 2001. THUS THE SAID CONTENTION FOR REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION IS ALSO NOT CORRECT. 14. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT DEFINITION OF THE PHRASE CHARITABLE PURPOSE IS INCLUSIVE AND IT COVERS A WIDER FIELD T HAN THE FIELD COVERED BY THE WORDS RELIGIOUS PURPOSE. FURTHER , IN SOME CASES, EVEN A RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY BY A PARTICULAR SECT WOUL D BE A CHARITABLE ACTIVITY; FOR SOME, SUPPLY OF FODDER TO ANIMALS AND CATTLE IS A RELIGIOUS OBJECT, WHILE TO OTHERS IT MAY BE A CHARI TABLE PURPOSE, ACCORDING TO HINDU RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY. SIMILARLY, KHAIRAT UNDER THE MOHAMEDAN LAW WOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE A RELIG IOUS ACTIVITY. THE SAID ACTIVITIES MAYBE FOR A CHARITABLE PURPOSE TO SOME. HENCE, IN MANY CASES, BOTH THE PURPOSES MAY BE OVERLAPPING . THE PURPOSES MAY HAVE BOTH THE ELEMENTS, CHARITY AS WEL L AS RELIGIOUS. 14.1 WHILE DEALING WITH WHAT IS RELIGIOUS OR CHA RITABLE PURPOSE IT IS OBSERVED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMCHANDRA 12 SHUKLA VS. SHREE MAHADEOJI, AIR 1970 SC 458, THAT TH ERE IS NO LINE OF DEMARCATION IN THE HINDU SYSTEM BETWEEN RELIGION A ND CHARITY. INDEED, CHARITY IS REGARDED AS PART OF RELIGION. WHILE DISCUSSING THIS ASPECT, THE SUPREME COURT HAS FURTHER OBSERVE D AS UNDER; HINDU PIETY FOUND EXPRESSION IN GIFTS TO IDOLS TO RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND FOR ALL PURPOSES CONSID ERED MERITORIOUS IN THE HINDU SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS SYST EM. THEREFORE, ALTHOUGH COURTS IN INDIA HAVE FOR A LONG TIME ADOPTED THE TECHNICAL MEANING OF CHARITABLE TRUSTS AND CHARITABLE PURPOSES WHICH THE COURTS IN ENGLAND HA VE PLACED UPON THE TERM CHARITY IN THE STATUTE OF ELIZABETH, AND, THEREFORE, ALL PURPOSES WHICH ACCORDING TO ENGLISH LAW ARE CHARITABLE WILL BE CHARITABLE UNDER HINDU LAW, THE HINDU CONCEPT OF CHARITYS SO COMPREHENSIVE THAT THERE ARE OTHER PURP OSES IN ADDITION WHICH ARE RECOGNIZED AS CHARITABLE PURP OSES. HENCE, WHAT ARE PURELY RELIGIOUS PURPOSES AND WHAT RELIGIOUS PURPOSES WILL BE CHARITABLE PURPOSES MUST BE DECIDED ACCORDING TO HINDU NOTIONS AND HINDU LAW. 15. WE NOTED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CWT VS. SMT. CHAMPA KUMARI SINGHI & OTHERS 1972 CTR (SC) 15 HAS HELD THAT JAINS, THOUGH MAY NOT BE HINDUS BY RELIGION, A RE GOVERNED BY THE SAME LAWS AS HINDUS. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER- THE UNDISPUTED POSITION WAS THAT THE JAINS WERE GOVERNED BY THE HINDU LAW MODIFIED BY CUSTOM AND A JAIN JOINT FAMILY WAS A HINDU JOINT FAMILY WITH ALL THE INCIDENTS ATTACHED TO SUCH A FAMILY UNDER THE HINDU LAW. THE LEGISLATIVE PRACTICE ALSO WAS TO GENERALLY TREAT JAINS AS INCLUDED IN THE TERM HINDU IN VARIOUS STATUTORY ENACTMENTS. 13 WHEREVER JAINS WERE MENTIONED IN ADDITION IT WAS BY WAY OF ABUNDANT CAUTION. THE NEW STATUTES DID NOT CHANGE SITUATION AND IT IS NOT POSSIBLE (SIC) HOW THE HIGH COURT IN THE JUDGEMNET UNDER APPEAL PRESSED THEM INTO SERVICE IN SUPPORTS OF ITS VIEW. THE FALLACY UNDERLYING THE REASONING OF THE HIGH COURT IS THAT THE ARTIFICIAL FIELD OF APPLICATION OF THE LAW IN THOSE STATUTES SHOWS THAT JAINISM IS NOT TREATED EVEN AS A FORM OR A DEVELOPMENT OF HINDUISM . THAT IS AN ERRONEOUS APPROACH. WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER JAINS ARE A SECT OF HINDUS OF HINDU DISSENTERS. EVEN IF THE RELIGIONS ARE DIFFERENT, WHAT IS COMMON IS THAT ALL THOSE WHO ARE TO GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THESE ENACTMENTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE TERM HINDU . THEY ARE TO BE GOVERNED BY THE SAME RULES RELATING TO MARRIAGE, SUCCESSION, MINORITY, GUARDIANSHIP ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE AS HINDUS. THE STATUTES HAVE THUS ACCORDED LEGISLATIVE RECOGNITION TO THE FACT THAT EVEN THOUGH JAINS MAY NOT BE HINDUS BY RELIGION THEY ARE TO BE GOVERNED BY THE SAME LAW AS THE HINDUS. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER THE EXPRESSION HUF WILL CERTAINLY INCLUDE THE JAIN UNDIVIDED FAMILY. THE LATER CLASS OF FAMILY IS NO KNOWN TO LAW. THE JAINS ARE GOVERNED BY ALONE INCIDENTS RELATING TO THE HINDU JOINT FAMILY. HUF IS A LEGAL EXPRESSION WHICH HAS BEEN EMPLOYED IN TAXATION LAWS. IT HAS DEFINITE CONNOTATION AND EMBODIES THE MEANING DESCRIBED TO THE EXPRESSION HINDU JOINT FAMILY. 16. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT IN REGARD TO JAINISM T HE BOOK WRITTEN BY DR. HUKKAM CHAND BHARILLA IN THE TITLE OF DHARM KE DASHLAKSHNA IT IS MENTIONED THAT :- DANA IS DESC RIBED AS OF FOUR KINDS :- 14 1. AHARA DANA ( GIFT OF FOOD) 2. AUSHADHI DANA ( GIFT OF MEDICINE) 3. JNANA DANA(GIFT OF BOOKS,. IMPARTING OF KNOWLE DGE) 4. ABHAYA DANA (GIFT OF SHELTER, PROTECTION FROM DANGER, ATTACK). 17. IT IS FURTHER MENTIONED THAT :- IN THIS LINE OF THE PUJANA (HYMN), THE USE OF TH E WORD DIVAIYA (I.E., DONOR) ALONGWITH THE WORD SHASTR AS- SACRED RELIGIOUS BOOKS, AND ABHAYA ( I.E GIVING SHELTER AND PROTECTING FROM DANGER AND ATTACK), AND THE USE OF WORD TYAGA ( RENOUNSMENY) ALONGWITH ATTACHMENT AND AVERSION, INDICATES THAT DANA IS DONE OF SHASTRAS AND ABHAYA, AND TYAGA ( RELINQUISHME NT) IS DONE OF RAGA( ATTACHMENT) AND DWESHA(AVERSION). MOREVER, BY USING THE WORD DHANI-SADHU (I.E, THE SAINTS ARE PRAISEWORTHY), IT HAS ABEEN MADE CLEAR T HAT THESE ARE THE RELIGIONS ( RITES) OF THE SAINT. AHA RA ( FOOD) AND AUSHADHI ( MEDICINE) ARE LEFT IN THISE LINE, DELIBERATELY, BECAUSE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE SA INT TO DONATE THESE. 18. THE LD.CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT A LL THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST ARE RELIGIOUS AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF MAN KIND WHICH WILL BE CLEAR FROM THE JAIN LITERATURE, GRANTH AND SHAS TRA. IF WE GO THROUGH THE FOLLOWING GRANTHS WE WILL FIND THAT THERE IS A THEORY OF UTTAMA TYAGA WHICH DESCRIBES THE KINDS OF DAN N AMELY AHARA (FOOD), ABHAYA (FEARLESSNESS), AUSHADI (MEDICINE) A ND SHASTRA DANA (DISTRIBUTION OF HOLY SCRIPTURES) AND TO PATRONIZE SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTE SELF AND OTHER UPLIFTS. 15 S.NO. NAME OF THE HOLY BOOK NAME OF THE AUTHOR RELEVANT PAGE 1 DHARMA KE DASHALAKSHANA DR. HUKAMCHAND BHARILLA 131 & 134 2 KARTHIKEYAN PREKSHA SWAMIKARTHIKEY 164 3 JAINENDRA SIDDHANTA KOSA PART-II KSHU. JINENDRA VARNI 422 4 GYANANAND SHRAVKACHAR BRAHMA CHARI PANDIT RAIMALJI 37 & 38 5 SHRI RATNAKARAN SHRAVKACHAR SWAMI SAMANT BHADRA ACHARYA 308 6 ABHIYAN RAJENDRA KOSH KI ACHARPARAK DARSHANIK SABDHAVALI KA ANUSEELAN SHRAVAK KE KARTHAVYA SADHVI DR. DARSHIT KALASHREE 355, 356 7 SHRI NYAN SAMUCHYA SAR SHRI JIN TARAN TRAN SWAMI VIRCHIT 119 8 RELEVANT EXTRACTS DOWNLOADED FROM WEB SITE E-JAINISM.COM 1 19. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PUBLIC RELIGIOUS TRUST AND THAT THE ACTION OF THE CIT IN REFUSING TO GRANT REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST ON THE GROUND OF VIOLATION OF PROVISION OF SECTION 13 (1) (B) OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. SUCH VIEW HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN BY THIS BENCH IN THE CASE OF DAUDI BOHARA JAMAT SARNGPUR IN ITA 615/ IND/2007 AND OTHERS DATED 28/03/2008. THE SAID DECISION OF THIS BENCH HAS ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 16 BENCH AT INDORE IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO 86 OF 2008 DELIVERED ON 22/06/2009.THUS GROUND NO. 1 & 2 ARE ALLOWED. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 AUGUST 2009. SD/- ( M.L.GUSIA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: 10/08/2009