ITO (E) 2(3), MUMBAI V. SRI SRI RADHA DAMODAR CHARITABLE TRUST, MUMBAI

ITA 3809/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7542 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM TIWARI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 143(3); 80G; 12A; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH F, MU MBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3809/MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2009-10) ITO (E)-2(3) 513, 5 TH FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, MUMBAI-12. VS. SHRI RADHA DAMODAR CHARITABLE TRUST, HARE KRISHNA LAND, JUHU, MUMBAI-400049 PAN:AAFTS2570L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI RAM TIWARI (DR) ASSESSEE BY : SH. NISHANT THAKKAR WITH MS. JASMIN AMALSADWALA- ADVOCATES. DATE OF HE ARING : 20.03.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.04.2018 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE UNDER SECTION 253 OF INCOME TAX ACT (THE ACT) IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-1, MUMBAI, [FOR SHORT THE LD. CIT(A)] DATED 03.03.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRO UNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW THE E XEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE A SSESSEE IS RUNNING A COMMERCIAL OR BUSINESS ACTIVITY VIZ. A RESTAURANT, WHICH IS GE NERATING HUGE PROFIT, IS OPEN TO OUTSIDER, NOT ENGAGED IN DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD TO PO OR AND NEEDY PEOPLE AS CONTEMPLATED IN ITS CHARITABLE OBJECTS, AND CAN NO WAY BE CONSTRUED AS A CHARITABLE ACTIVITY, IGNORING THE DETAILED FINDING ON THE FACT S BY THE AO. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW THE E XEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, WHEN THE ONLY CHARITABLE WORK CARRIED OU T BY THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A VEGETARIAN RESTAURANT AND EARNING HUGE PROFITS YEAR AFTER YEAR AND SHOWING THE EXPENSES OF RUNNING RESTAURANT AS EXPENSES ON THE O BJECTS OF THE TRUST. ITA NO. 3809/MUM/2016 - SHRI RA DHA DAMODAR CHARITABLE TRUST 2 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW THE E XPENSES CLAIMED AS RENT OF RS.1,08,00,000/-? 4. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, MUMBAI BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST, HAVING REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT. THE ASSE SSEE IS ESTABLISHED WITH THE OBJECT TO IMPART RELIEF TO POOR, EDUCATION, MEDICAL RELIEF AND PROMOTION OF VEGETARIANISM, DISTRIBUTION OF PRASADAM AND ADVANCE MENT OF OTHER OBJECT OR GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY IN FURTHERANCE OF ETHICAL AN D PHILOSOPHICAL PRINCIPLES OF KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON 25.09.2009. WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, T HE ASSESSEE FILED AUDITED REPORT UNDER SECTION 44AB IN THE FORM NO. 3CD AND C LAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 30.12.2011 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WH ILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DISALLOWED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE DONATION OF RS. 2,62,98,362/- AND PA YMENT OF RENT RS. 1,08,00,000/-TO ISCON. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) ALLOWED THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, F URTHER AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE HAS FILED PRESENT APP EAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ( AR) FOR THE REVENUE AND LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) OF THE ASSESSEE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. GROUND NO. 1 & 2 TO ALLOWING T HE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING ITA NO. 3809/MUM/2016 - SHRI RA DHA DAMODAR CHARITABLE TRUST 3 OFFICER. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS A SALE OF RS. 7,07,25,469/- AGAINST THE TOTAL PURCHASE OF RS. 1,78,26,586/- AND INDIREC T EXPENDITURE OF RS. 18,8,14,423/- APART FROM TAKING THE ADVANCE OF RS. 2,84,900/- FOR PARTIES SALE AND RS. 36,84,500/- FOR HALL BOOKING. THE ASSESSE E ALSO EARNED INCOME FROM MANDAP SERVICES OF RS. 70,19,000/-. THE ACTIVITIE S AND THE RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ON COMMERCIAL LINE. THERE WAS NO ELEME NT OF ANY CHARITY CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ALL SOURCE OF INCOME CLE ARLY FALLS IN THE DEFINITION OF THE BUSINESS. IN ADDITION TO THE SUBMISSION OF L D DR, THE LD. CIT- DR FOR THE REVENUE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE AGGREGATE RECEIPT FROM THE ACTIVITIES DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR ARE IN EXCESS OF PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF TOTAL RECEIPT. ONCE THE RECEIPTS ARE IN EXCESS OF PRESCRIBED LIMIT THE PROV ISO ATTACHED WITH SUB-SECTION (15) OF SECTION 2 OF THE ACT WOULD ATTRACT. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TS THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS THE ASSESSEE WAS DENIED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 IN A SSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 BY ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED EXEMPTION. THE REVENUE FILED APPEAL BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHEREIN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WAS SUSTAINED VIDE ORDER DATED 18.07.2012 IN ITA NO. 5773/MUM/2011. FURTHER, SIMILAR RELIEF WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 VIDE ITA NO. 246 1/MUM/2014 DATED 03.11.2016 BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, COPIES OF BOTH THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL ARE PLACED ON RECORD. THE LD. AR OF THE ITA NO. 3809/MUM/2016 - SHRI RA DHA DAMODAR CHARITABLE TRUST 4 ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THERE IS NO VARIANCE IN THE FACT WITH THE EARLIER YEARS AND AS SUCH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY R EVENUE ARE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. DURING THE ASSESSMENT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON BUSINESS ACTIVITIES BY DISTRIBUTION OF PRASADAM AND MANDAP SERVICES. AND THAT THE ASSESSEE DERIVED A SALE OF RS.70,725,469/-, AND PURCHASES ARE OF RS. 17,826,586/- AND INDIRECT EXPENSES OF RS.18,814,423/- APART FROM THE OTHER ITEMS DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AN D LOSS ACCOUNT. THE PRIMARILY REASON IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GENERATED SUBSTANTI AL REVENUE. THE LD CIT(A) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF ORDER OF LD CIT(A) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 DATED 28.04.2015. THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IS BASED ON THE ORDER OF TR IBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DENIED SIMILAR DEDUCTIONS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. ON APPEAL LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED THE RELIEF. THE REVENUE FILED APPEAL BE FORE TRIBUNAL, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DATED 18.07.20 12 IN ITA NO.5773/M/2011. FOR APPRECIATION OF ORDER THE RELEV ANT PART OF THE ORDER IS EXTRACTED BELOW; 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE INASMUCH AS IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE PRINCIPLE OBJ ECTS OF THE TRUST INCLUDE PROMOTION OF VEGETARIANISM AND DISTRIBUTION OF PRASAD. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL ITA NO. 3809/MUM/2016 - SHRI RA DHA DAMODAR CHARITABLE TRUST 5 FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT BY NOT USING ONION AND GARLIC IN THE FOOD PREPARATIONS, THE ASSESSEE IS PROPAGATING THE VAISHNAVI PRINCIPLES, T HEREBY FURTHERING THE PRINCIPLES OF KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS AND PROMOTING THE VEGETARI ANISM. ACCORDING TO THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACTING AS CHARTABLE ORGANIZATIO N. THE ENTIRE CHARACTER AND FOCUS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME TOTALLY COMMERCIAL. THER E IS GENERATION OF HUGE PROFITS YEAR AFTER YEAR, A PART OF WHICH 7 ITA 5773/M/2011 IS DIVERTED TO THE RELATED CONCERN. THUS, THE ACTIVITIES ARE BEING CARRIED ON COMMERCIAL LINES AND ALSO NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT SINCE THE PRINCIPLE OBJECT OF THE TRUST INCLUDES PROMOTION OF VEGETARIANISM, THE BUSINESS OF PREPARING VEGETARIAN FOOD ITEMS AND SELLING THE SAM E IS VERY MUCH INCIDENTAL TO THE OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AND SUCH BUSINESS CAN BE CONDUCTED BY A CHARITABLE TRUST AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(4A) OF THE ACT. 8. IN THE CASE OF SRI SRI RADHA RASBIHARIJI PRASADA M VINIYOG TRUST (SUPRA) ON THE SIMILAR ISSUE THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER:- '3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY BO TH SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND THE PA PER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HELD IN HIS ORDER THAT THERE IS NO CHARITABLE ACTIVITY DONE BY THE TRUST B UT THE TRUST IS DOING A BUSINESS AND THE INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS ALSO WAS NOT UTILI ZED ON ANY OBJECT OF THE TRUST AND HENCE EXEMPTION UNDER SEC. 11 IS NOT ALLO WABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, THE CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING AS UNDER:- 'I HAVE PERUSED THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE APPELL ANT AS WELL AS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE FIGURE OF NET PROFIT AS WORKE D OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS INCORRECT AND THE NET PROFIT ACTUALLY CO MES TO RS. 5.29 LAKHS. THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1.20 LAKHS ALSO DOES NOT REPRESENT SA LE PROCEEDS AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IS ONLY A DONATION FROM O NE PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST TO ANOTHER. THIS INCORRECT FACT AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SUGGESTS THAT THE ACCOUNTS WERE NOT PROPERLY PERUSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE WAS DEEPLY INFLUENCED BY THE BUMPER PROFIT IN ARRIV ING AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLANT WAS CONDUCTING THE BUSINESS SOLELY WI TH THE PROFIT MOTIVE. BESIDES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SIMPLY IGNORED T HE MAIN OBJECT OF THE ITA NO. 3809/MUM/2016 - SHRI RA DHA DAMODAR CHARITABLE TRUST 6 APPELLANT THAT IS PROMOTION OF VEGETARIANISM. THE B USINESS OF PREPARING VEGETARIAN FOOD ITEMS AND SELLING THE SAME WAS VERY MUCH INCIDENTAL TO THE OBJECTS OF THE APPELLANT AND SUCH BUSINESS CAN BE O F SECTION 11(4A) . IN CASE THE PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST IS ENGAGED IN A BUSINES S WHICH IS INCIDENTAL TO ITS OBJECT THE SAME WILL NOT DISQUALIFY THE CHARITABLE TRUST FROM EXEMPTION U/S 11. IN MY 8 ITA 5773/M/2011 OPINION THE PREPARATION OF VEGETARIAN FOOD ITEMS AND SELLING THE SAME WAS MAINLY FOR POPULARIZING TH E VEGETARIAN FOOD HABITS AND IN THIS WAY THE APPELLANT WAS ENGAGED IN PROMOT ING THE VEGETARIANISM AMONG THE PEOPLE, WHICH IS UNDOUBTEDLY A CHARITABLE OBJECT OF THE APPELLANT. THE MAJOR PORTION OF THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE APP ELLANT WAS DONATED TO ISKCON WHICH IS A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST OF WORLDW IDE RECOGNITION AND REPUTATION AND ANY DONATION FROM ONE CHARITABLE TRU ST TO ANOTHER CONSTITUTE APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR THE CHARITABLE PURPOSES. THE ISKCON ARE ALSO PUBLISHING BOOKLETS AND BROCHURES FOR THE PROMOTION OF VEGETARIANISM AMONG THE PEOPLE. THUS THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE APPELLANT TO THE ISKCON ALSO HELPS TO PROMOTE ITS OWN OBJECT INDIRECTLY. IN VIEW OF TH E ABOVE DISCUSSION IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT TRUST IS CONDUCTING THE BUSINESS WHICH IS VERY MUCH INCIDENTAL TO ITS CHARITABLE OBJECTS AND THE INCOME FROM SUCH BUSINESS IS APPLIED FOR THE FULFILLMENT OF CHARITABLE PURPOSES AND THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S. 11. IN VIEW OF TH E CLEAR CUT PROVISION OF SECTION 11(4A) , THE EXEMPTION U/S 11(1) HAS TO BE ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE SAME AND TO GRANT OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS OF APPLICATION AND ACCUMULAT ION OF INCOME TO THE APPELLANT TRUST U/S 11(1). HOWEVER, THE ACCUMULATIO N U/S 11(1) IS HEREBY RESTRICTED TO THE EXTENT OF POSITIVE INCOME WHICH R EMAIN AFTER ALLOWING THE EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT TRUST FOR THE APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR ITS OBJECT. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER, WE FULLY AGREE WITH THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) FOR COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION UNDER SEC. 11 OF THE I.T. ACT AND UPHOLD HIS ORDER.' 9. IN ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (S UPRA) HOLD THAT THE PREPARATION OF VEGETARIAN FOOD ITEMS AND SELLING THE SAME WAS M AINLY FOR POPULARISING THE VEGETARIAN FOOD HABITS AND IN THIS WAY THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN PROMOTING THE VEGETARIANISM AMONG THE PEOPLE SO THAT THEY CAN CHA NGE THEIR LIVING HABITS AND ITA NO. 3809/MUM/2016 - SHRI RA DHA DAMODAR CHARITABLE TRUST 7 TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS FOR THE BETTERMENT OF HUMA NITY, WHICH IS UNDOUBTEDLY A CHARITABLE OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE MAJOR PORTIO N OF THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DONATED TO ISKCON WHICH IS A PUBLIC CH ARITABLE TRUST OF WORLDWIDE RECOGNITION AND REPUTATION AND ANY DONATION FROM ON E CHARITABLE TRUST TO ANOTHER CHARITABLE TRUST CONSTITUTE APPLICATION OF INCOME F OR THE CHARITABLE PURPOSES. 10. AS REGARDS THE A.O.'S OBJECTION THAT THE ASSESS EE IS CLAIMING DOUBLE DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON THE SAME VERY ASSETS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO DOUBLE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. RE CENTLY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MARKET COMMITTEE, PIPLI (2011) 330 ITR 16 (P&H) AFTER CONSIDERING VARIOUS DECISIONS WH ILE DISTINGUISHING THE DECISION IN ESCORTS LTD. V. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC) HAS HELD AS UNDER (PAGE 20 & 21):- 'IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CLAIMING DOUBLE DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION AS HAS BEEN SUGGESTED BY LE ARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE. THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BEING EXEMPT, T HE ASSESSEE IS ONLY CLAIMING THAT DEPRECIATION SHOULD BE REDUCED FROM T HE INCOME FOR DETERMINING THE PERCENTAGE OF FUNDS WHICH HAVE TO B E APPLIED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TRUST. THERE IS NO DOUBLE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS CANVASSED BY THE REVENUE. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'B LE SUPREME COURT IN ESCORTS LTD. CASE [1993] 199 ITR 43 IS DISTINGUISHA BLE FOR THE ABOVE REASONS. IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT DOUBLE BENEFIT IS GIVEN IN A LLOWING CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION FOR COMPUTING INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 11 . THE QUESTIONS PROPOSED HAVE, THUS, TO BE ANSWERED AGAINST THE REV ENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE.' 11. FOR THE REASONS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DISTRIBUTING PRASAD AND DOING OTHER CHARITABLE ACTI VITIES FOR THE PROMOTION OF VEGETARIAN FOOD HABITS AMONG THE PEOPLE, THE ASSESS EE IS ENTITLED FOR THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. THE ORDER PASSED BY TH E LD. CIT(A) IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO ALLOW THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT AND T O GRANT OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFIT OF APPLICATION AND ACCUMULATION OF INCOME T O THE APPELLANT TRUST U/S 11(1) OF THE ACT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 12. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 G OF THE ACT, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DONATED I TS MAJOR PORTION OF ITS INCOME TO ISKCON, A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST OF WORLDWIDE RECO GNITION AND REPUTATION. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT ANY DONATION FROM ONE CHARITABLE T RUST TO ANOTHER CHARITABLE TRUST ITA NO. 3809/MUM/2016 - SHRI RA DHA DAMODAR CHARITABLE TRUST 8 WOULD CONSTITUTE APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR THE CHAR ITABLE PURPOSES ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT . THIS BEING SO AND KEEPING IN VIEW THAT THE CERTIFICATE U/S 80G OF THE ACT FOR THE PERIOD 1-4-2 005 TO 31-3-2008 HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE ISKCON BY THE DIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBA I VIDE CERTIFICATE DTD. 4- 4-2005, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AMOUNT OF DONAT ION TO BE TREATED AS SPENT FOR THE CHARITABLE PURPOSES OF THE TRUST AND ACCORDINGL Y WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN ALLOWING BOTH THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE ARE, THEREFORE, REJECTED. 6. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT 'IN THE CASE OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX VS. WOMENS INDIA TRUST (2015) 379 ITR 506 (BOM) HAD UPHELD THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT WHERE A TRUST FOR MED TO CARRY OUT THE OBJECT OF EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL TALENTS OF THE PEOPLE HAVING SPECIAL SKILLS, MORE PARTICULARLY THE WOMEN IN THE SOCIETY, HAD IN THE COURSE OF IMPARTING TO THEM TRAINING IN THE FIELD OF CATERING , STITCHING, TOY MAKING, ETC., THEREIN CARRIED OUT SALE OF CERTAIN FINISHED PRODUC TS, VIZ. PICKLES, JAMS, ETC. WHICH WERE IN THE COURSE OF SUCH TRAINING PRODUCED BY THEM, THROUGH SHOPS, EXHIBITIONS AND PERSONAL CONTRACTS, THE SAME COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE ACTIVITIES IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS AS CON TEMPLATED IN THE PROVISO OF SEC. 2(15). 7. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN THE CASE OF DIR ECTOR OF INCOME TAX. (EXEMPTION) VS. THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT STUDY CIRC LE (2012) 250 CTR 70 (MAD), HAD THE OCCASION TO .DELIBERATE ON THE SCOPE AND GAMUT OF THE FIRST PROVISO OF SEC. 2(15) IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE TR UST WHOSE OBJECTS AMONG OTHER THINGS WAS TO CONDUCT PERIODICAL MEETINGS ON PROFESSIONAL SUBJECTS. THE HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT THE PUBLISHING AND SALE OF BOOKS, BOOKLETS ETC. ON ITA NO. 3809/MUM/2016 - SHRI RA DHA DAMODAR CHARITABLE TRUST 9 PROFESSIONAL SUBJECTS RELATED TO AUDIT AND NOT ON A NY OTHER SUBJECT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SALE OF THE BOOKS WAS PRIMARILY MADE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY, AS WELL AS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE GENERAL P UBLIC, WITH THE AIM TO HELP THE SOCIETY TO GET BETTER, WELL-EQUIPPED AND SKILLE D SET OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS FOR MAINTAINING AUDIT QUALITY, WHICH HO WEVER COULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS A TRADE OR COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. THUS, THE HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST IN PUBLIS HING AND SELLING BOOKS OF PROFESSIONAL INTEREST, WHICH WERE MEANT TO BE USED AS A REFERENCE MATERIAL EVEN BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC AS WELL AS THE PROFESSIONALS IN RESPECT OF BANK AUDIT, TAX AUDIT, ETC., COULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY. 8. WE FURTHER FIND THAT A SIMILAR VIEW HAD ALSO BEEN T AKEN BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF THE INSTITUTE OF CHAR TERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA VS, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME (TAX (EXEMPTION) (20 13) 260 CTR L (DEL). THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT NO DOUBT THE ASSESSEE INST ITUTE WAS HOLDING CLASSES AND PROVIDING COACHING FACILITIES FOR THE MEMBERS A ND ARTICLED CLERKS ETC. WHO WANTED TO APPEAR IN THE EXAMINATION CONDUCTED BY TH E INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, BUT THESE CLASSES WERE NOT HELD FOR CO ACHING OR FOR APPEARANCE IN AN EXAMINATION CONDUCTED BY SOME OTHER ENTITY. THE HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT AS CONDUCTING OF COACHING CLASSES WAS WITH THE PRED OMINANT OBJECT OF MAINTAINING AND UPHOLDING THE STANDARDS OF THE ACCO UNTANCY PROFESSION AND IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECT AND PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE INSTITUTE WAS ESTABLISHED, I.E., PROFESSIONAL EXCELLENCE AND PROMOTION OF ACCO UNTANCY AS A PREFERRED ITA NO. 3809/MUM/2016 - SHRI RA DHA DAMODAR CHARITABLE TRUST 10 PROFESSION, AND TO SHARPEN THE SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE MEMBERS OF INSTITUTE WHO WOULD ATTEND THE COURSES/LECTURES ETC., THEREFO RE, THE ACTIVITIES OF PROVIDING COACHING CLASSES OR UNDERTAKING CAMPUS PL ACEMENT INTERVIEWS FOR A FEE WERE IN RELATION TO THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE ASSE SSEE INSTITUTE, WHICH COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE TRADE, BUSINESS OR COMMERCE. THE HIGH COURT WHILE CONCLUDING AS HEREINABOVE, HAD OBSERVED AS UNDER: 'AFTER GOING THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ICAI ACT AND THE REGULATIONS FRAMED THEREIN AS WELL AS VARIOUS ACTIVITIES CARRIE D ON BY THE PETITIONER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PETITIONER INSTITUTE DOES NOT CARRY ON ANY BUSINESS, TRADE OR COMMERCE. THE ACTIVITY OF IMPARTING EDUCAT ION IN THE FIELD OF ACCOUNTANCY AND CONDUCTING COURSES BOTH AT PRE-QUAL IFICATION AS WELL AS POST- QUALIFICATION LEVEL ARE ACTIVITIES IN FURTHERANCE O F THE OBJECT FOR WHICH THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN CONSTITUTED. ACTIVITIES OF PROV IDING COACHING CLASSES OR UNDERTAKING CAMPUS PLACEMENT INTERVIEWS FOR A FEE A RE IN RELATION TO THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE PETITIONER WHICH AS STATED EARLIER CA NNOT BE HELD TO BE TRADE, BUSINESS OR COMMERCE. ACCORDINGLY, EVEN THOUGH FEES ARE CHARGED BY THE PETITIONER INSTITUTE FOR PROVIDING COACHING CLASSES AND FOR HOLDING INTERVIEWS WITH RESPECT TO CAMPUS PLACEMENT, THE SAID ACTIVITI ES CANNOT BE STATED TO BE RENDERING SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERC E OR BUSINESS AS SUCH ACTIVITIES ARE UNDERTAKEN BY THE PETITIONER INSTITU TE IN FURTHERANCE OF ITS MAIN OBJECT WHICH AS HELD EARLIER ARE NOT TRADE, COMMERC E OR BUSINESS. 9. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL OUR CONSIDERATION ON THE FACTS QUA THE ISSUE BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE TRU ST WERE DIRECTED FOR PROMOTING ITS OBJECTS OF VEGETARIANISM AND DISTRIBUTION OF PR ASADAM AND FOOD TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO SUPPORT THE CAUSE OF LORD KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS MOVEMENT. THE ASSESSEE TRUST FOLLOWS THE PRINCIPLE OF BHAGWAT GITA WHILE COOKING, SELLING AND PREPARATION OF VEGETARIAN PRASADAM. THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ESSENTIAL TO SPREAD THE THOUGHT OF UNDERSTANDIN G THE LORD KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS AND VEGETARIANISM. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS NOT SPREADING THE KRISHNA CON SCIOUSNESS AND ITA NO. 3809/MUM/2016 - SHRI RA DHA DAMODAR CHARITABLE TRUST 11 VEGETARIANISM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGH T ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT DISTRIBUTION OF PRASADAM HAS ANY COMMERCI AL ANGEL. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE PROVIDING OF THE AFORESAID SERVICES IS INDISPENSABLY REQUIRED TO FACILITATE THE FURTHERANCE OF THE VERY INTEREST OF THE LORD KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE SOCIETY. EVEN, WE ARE OF A STR ONG CONVICTION THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE AFORESAID ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST, WHICH AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE CAN SAFELY BE HELD TO HAVE BEEN INDI SPENSABLY REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. 10. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS WE DO NOT FIND ANY ILLEGALITY OR INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT (A) IN GRANTING THE EXE MPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH DAY OF APRIL 2018. SD/- SD/- ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 04/04/2018 S.K.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. C