ITO(E), New Delhi V. Bhagwan Shree Laxmi Narayan Dham Trust, Delhi

ITA 6564/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2607 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MOHAN PARA SARAN; SANCHIT JOLLY; SANJAY KATYAL
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Gift; Charitable institution; Competent authority; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 12; 11; 143(3); 12A; 250

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.:-6564/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.09.2015 PASSED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS)-40 NEW DELHI FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S 143(3) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- ITO (E) WARD-1(3), E-2 BLOCK, ROOM NO. 2419 24 TH FLOOR, PRATYAKSH KAR BHAWAN, CIVIC CENTRE, JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU MARG NEW DELHI - 110002 VS. BHAGWAN SHREE LAXMI NARAYAN DHAM TRUST 5/120 SANT NIRANKARI COLONY DELHI 110 009 PAN AAATB6065A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI RINKU SINGH, SR. D R RESPONDENT : ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MOHAN PARA SARAN, SR. ADVOCATE SHRI SANCHIT JOLLY, ADVOCATE SHRI SANJAY KATYAL, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 24/01 /201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08 /03/2019 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/A 11/12 OF THE I.T. ACT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE ITS OBJECTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDING INDIRECT BENEFITS TO GURUDEVJI, WHO IS A PERSON SPECIFIED U/S 13 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX, ACT 1961 IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1) (C) OF THE ACT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE BENEFITS OF SECTION 11 & 12 OF THE ACT, IGNORING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1) WHICH PROVIDES THAT EVEN IF THERE IS A SINGLE INSTANCE OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 13(1), THE TRUST WILL LOSE THE EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF ITS ENTIRE INCOME. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION L1SBBC ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. C!T(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ON SAMAGAMS DESPITE THE FACT AT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVIDE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON SAMAGAMS. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF, ARE THAT ASSESSEE TRUST WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12A VIDE CERTIFICATE / ORDER DATED 20.5.2005. THE SAID TRUST WAS CREATED VIDE TRUST DEED DATED 30.12.2002 WHICH WAS SET UP BY ITS FOUNDER BRHAMRISH SHREE KUMAR SWAMIJI. THE OBJECTS OF THE 3 TRUST HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE AS UNDER :- I. TO ESTABLISH, PROMOTE, SET-UP, RUN, MAINTAIN ASSIST FINANCE, SUPPORT AND /OR HELP IN SETTING UP AND/OR MAINTAINING AND /OR RUNNING SCHOOLS, AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS ORPHANAGES, WIDOW HOME, POOR HOUSES 'OR OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS FOR RELIEF AND/OR HELP TO THE POOR, OLD AND INFIRM PEOPLE II. TO GIVE PROMOTE AND/OR RENDER HELP AND ASSISTANCE IN CASH OR KIND TO POOR AND/OR DESTITUTE PEOPLE WIDOWS ETC. III. TO GIVE, PROVIDE AND/OR RENDER HELP AND ASSISTANCE TO AND/OR IMPLEMENT ANY SCHEME FOR PROVIDING LIVELIHOOD AND UPLIFTMENT OF THE POOR. IV. TO WORK FOR UPLIFTMEN1 OF WOMEN, GIRLS-WIDOWS, ORPHANS, ILLITERATE, OLD-AGED, HANDICAPPED AND MENTALLY RETARDED PERSONS. V. TO PROVIDE FOOD & SHELTER TO POOR AND NEEDY PERSONS. VI. TO DISTRIBUTE SCHOLARSHIPS TO THE ELIGIBLE STUDENTS CHILDREN. VII. TO ARRANGE, ESTABLISH, MANAGE AND SUPERVISE ORPHANAGES, OLD AGE HOMES, NIGHT SHELTERS, HOSPITALS, DHARMSHALA, NARI NIKETAN AND MAHILA ASHRAM ETC. VIII. TO LIKE SPIRITUAL LECTURE TO MENTAL DISTURBED PERSONAL AND SPIRITUAL LECTURE TO ALL KINDS OF HUMAN BEINGS. IX. TO PROVIDE HEALTH CARE FACILITIES, MEDICAL RELIEF AND TO OPEN AND MANAGE CHARITABLE DISPENSARIES, CLINICS ETC. AND TO DISTRIBUTE MEDICINE TO THE WEAKER SECTIONS. 4 X. TO PROVIDE FOOD & SHELTER TO COWS AND LOOK AFTER THE SHELTER OF THE COWS ETC. XI. TO DO ALL OTHER ACTIVITIES FOR THE INTEREST OF THE HUMAN BEINGS TO HELP IN PHYSICAL, MENTALLY AND FINANCIALLY. XII. TO GIVE PROVIDE AND/OR RENDER FOOD, MEDICINE AND OTHER HELP AND /OR ASSISTANCE IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM TO THE POOR DESERVING AND NEEDY PERSONS. TO GIVE PROVIDE AND/OR RENDER MONETARY AND/OR OTHER HELP AND ASSISTANCE FOR THE RELIEF OF PERSONS AND ANIMALS AFFECTED BY NATURAL AND OTHER CALAMITIES SUCH AS FLOOD, FIRE, FAMINE, CYCLONE, EARTHQUAKE, STORM, ACCIDENT, PESTILENCE DROUGHT, CYCLONE, SPEDEMIC AND THE LIKES TO GIVE DONATIONS, SUBSCRIPTIONS OR CONTRIBUTIONS, TO INSTITUTIONS, ESTABLISHMENTS CENTRES OF PERSONS DONG RELIEF WORK ON SUCH OCCASIONS. XIII. TO PROMOTE, ORGANISE SELF HELP GROUP SPECIFICALLY FOR WOMEN AND MEN TO CREATE SAVING HABITS AND HELP THEM TO PROMOTE ECONOMICALLY VALUABLE PROJECTS TO GENERATE INCOME AND EMPLOYMENTS BY THEMSELVES. IN THIS REGARDS A SPECIAL THEM SHALL WORK AS THE BRIDGE BETWEEN THE BENEFICIARY AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES INSTITUTIONS OTHER NGO'S. XIV. TO OPEN, FOUND, ESTABLISH, MANAGE, PROMOTE, SET-UP, RUN, MAINTAIN, ASSIST, FINANCE, SUPPORT AND /OR HELP IN THE SETTING UP AND/OR MAINTAINING AND/OR RUNNING SCHOOLS, COLLEGES, ARTS AND SCIENCE MEDICAL, PARA MEDICAL AND TECHNICAL, LECTURE HALLS AND OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS OR INSTITUTIONS ETC, FOR ADVANCEMENT OF EDUCATION AND KNOWLEDGE IN ARTS, SCIENCE, LITERATURE HUMANITIES AND AIL OTHER USEFUL SUBJECTS IN ALL THEIR MANIFESTATION. 5 XV. TO ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN AND RUN DISPENSARIES, NURSING HOMES, HOSPITALS, PROVIDING MEDICAL TREATMENT TO ALL HUMAN DISEASES WITH ALL SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL AND TESTS OF ALL KINDS. XVI. TO OPEN FOUND, ESTABLISH, PROMOTE, SET-UP, RUN MAINTAIN ASSIST, FINANCE, SUPPORT AND/OR HELP IN THE SETTING UP AND/OR MAINTAINING, BOARDING HOUSES, LIBRARIES, READING ROOMS AND OTHER TRAINING AND VOCATIONAL INSTITUTES. XVII. TO PROMOTE, ORGANIZE, ADMINISTER, ESTABLISH SUPPORT MAINTAIN AND/OR GRANT AND TO PERSON INSTITUTION OR SOCIETY OR ORGANISATION IS EVER HAVING FOR THE OBJECTS OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE AND TO INCUR EXPENDITURE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. XVIII. TO PROMOTE ASSIST AND/OR MAINTAIN ALL ACTIVITIES BY WHOMSOEVER CARRIED ON OR WHEREVER CARRIED ON IN INDIA, IN CONFIRMING WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AND AS ARE CONDUCTIVE TO ALL WELL BEING AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE NATION OR ARE CONDUCTIVE OR ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OBJECTS OR OBJECTS OF GENERAL PUBLIC AGAINST NOT INVOLVING CARRYING ON ANY ACTIVITY FOR PUBLIC. XIX. TO PUBLISH AND/OR PUBLISHING BOOKS, PAMPLETS, PERIODICALS AND NEWSPAPERS IN INDIA OR OUTSIDE FOR TO SPREAD AND ADVANCEMENT OF EDUCATION, ARTS, SCIENCE, ETHICS AND CULTURE. XX. TO PROMOTE AND ENCOURAGE EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN HANDICRAFTS, FINE ARTS, AMONG WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND ESTABLISH AND FOUND INSTITUTIONS IN PARTING TO SUCH EDUCATION AND TO ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN, SUPPORT OR HELP BY MONETARY GIFTS, OR OTHERWISE CENTRES AND INSTITUTIONS FOR WOMEN AND 6 CHILDREN AND TO PROVIDE SOCIAL WELFARE WORKS FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN. XXI. TO DO ALL SUCH ACTION WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR FULFILLING THE AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE SOCIETY. 3. LD. AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE TRUST HAS BEEN HOLDING SPIRITUAL AND RELIGIOUS DISCOURSES AT VARIOUS SAMAGAMS (CONGREGATIONS) AND ALSO ON TV CHANNELS. THE SAID DISCOURSES ARE ADDRESSED BY BRHAMRISHI SHREE KUMAR SWAMIJI KNOWN AS GURUDEVJI WHEREIN THE PARTICIPANTS ARE IMPARTED MANTRAS I.E. BEEJ MANTRAS FOR PROVIDING RELIEF FROM DISEASES, MENTAL TENSION AND MATERIALISTIC WORRIES. THE AO NOTED THAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN IMPARTING OF SPIRITUAL EDUCATION, HOWEVER, IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND 2010-11, ADDITIONS WERE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ANONYMOUS DONATIONS AND SAME WAS TAXED BY INVOKING PROVISION OF SECTION 115BBC. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT DURING THE YEAR, ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED A MANDIR AT GREATER KAILASH ENCLAVE, PART I DEVOTED TO HINDU GODS AND GODDESSES OPEN TO GENERAL PUBLIC. HE OBSERVED THAT LOOKING INTO THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST, WHICH WAS MAINLY FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE BUT THERE WAS NO SUCH CLAUSE WHICH CAN CALL EVEN RELIGIOUS PURPOSE. IT IS NOT MENTIONED INFORMATION OF THE 21 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY HIM IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. EVEN IN THE SUPPLEMENTARY TRUST DEEDS, THERE IS NO ALTERATIONS OR AMENDMENTS MADE IN THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE MOSTLY REVOLVES AROUND ITS RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES AND SETTING UP OF TEMPLE FOR WORSHIPPING OF HINDU GOD AND GODDESS AND SUCH DISCOURSES AT EVERY SAMAGAM IS NOTHING BUT IMPARTING OF RELIGION LECTURES. THUS, THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS NOT TREATED OR ESTABLISHED FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSE THEN IT CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED ITS ACTIVITIES WHICH HAS NOW BECOME RELIGIOUS IN NATURE. THE OBJECTS OF A CHARITABLE TRUST IS SACROSANCT AND IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE TO GO BEYOND THE OBJECTS. THE ASSESEE BEFORE THE 7 AO, SUBMITTED THAT IT IS ESSENTIALLY RELIGIOUS / SPIRITUAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST AND IT IS ENGAGED IN ACTIVITIES OF PUBLIC CHARITY AS WELL AS SPIRITUAL / RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES FOR THE UPLIFTMENT OF CONSCIOUSNESS OF HUMANITY AND FACILITATION FOR FREEDOM FROM SUFFERING BY WAY OF COSMIC GRACE. THE AO RELEASED THAT AS PER THE ADMISSION OF ASSESEE ITSELF IT IS PURELY RELIGIOUS OBJECTS AND TRUST WAS ESTABLISHED FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSE. FURTHER TRIED TO DISTINGUISH THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SOCIAL SERVICE CENTRE 250 ITR 39 (AP) AS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESEE AND ALSO OTHER JUDGMENTS. HE ALSO TRIED TO REJECT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT OBJECTS OF THE TRUST INCLUDE IMPARTING OF SPIRITUAL LECTURES AND THE WORDS SPIRITUAL AND RELIGIOUS ARE SACROSANCT. THE REASON GIVEN BY FOR SUCH REJECTION IS THAT IN THE DICTIONARY THESE TWO HAVE BEEN A DIFFERENT CONNOTATION. AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSION AND LOOKING TO THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESEE ORGANISING SPIRITUAL AND OTHER VARIOUS RELIGIOUS AND RITUALS, HE HELD THAT THUS ACTIVITIES ARE PURELY RELIGIOUS AND HENCE ASESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S 11 AND 12. HE ALSO REFERRED TO THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND 2010-11 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE AND SPIRITUAL ORGANISATIONS. HOWEVER, IN THIS YEAR THE FACTS HAVE CHANGED SIMPLY BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS SET UP A TEMPLE OF HINDU GOD AND GODDESS AND THUS PRECEDENCE OF EARLIER YEARS WILL NOT APPLY BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESEE IN THOSE YEARS. 4. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 3,10,01,534/- UNDER THE HEAD AADHYATAMIC PRAVACHAN EXPENSES ON TELECAST OF SAMAGAMS WHERE RELIGIOUS DISCOURSES AND BEEJ MANTRAS ARE GIVEN BY THE FOLLOWERS. HE REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY GURUDEVJI ON TELECAST OF DISCOURSE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. HOWEVER, NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED. THUS HE DEDUCED THAT SUCH AN EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED BY GIVING RS. 8 3,10,01,535/- INCURRED ON TELECAST OF SAMAGAMS. AO FURTHER HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED SUM OF RS. 9,23,944/- ON SAMAGAM EXPENSES I.E. FOR ORGANISING RELIGIOUS CONGREGATION AT VARIOUS PLACES AND ASSESEE COULD NOT GIVE ANY DETAILS OF SAMAGAM HELD DURING THE YEAR. THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT ASSESSEE MUST HAVE INCURRED SUM OF RS. 50 LACS OUT OF WHICH UNEXPLAINED ANONYMOUS DONATIONS RECEIVED BY IT. AND FINALLY HE MADE ADDITION. THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO WAS RS. 50 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DONATIONS AND 1/3 RD DISALLOWANCE OF TELECAST EXPENSES WHICH WAS RS. 1,03,33,845/- AND HAS ALSO THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 FINALLY TAXABLE INCOME WAS WORKED OUT RS. 5,33,81,050/-. 5. LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF IN ITA NO. 269/2015 VIDE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 7.9.2015 AFTER VERIFYING THE SAME OBJECTS AND THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT HAS UPHELD THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 11. HE ALSO TOOK NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AFTER VERIFYING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST THEIR LORDSHIP HELD THAT WHAT CAN CONSTITUTE RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES IN THE CONTEXT OF THE RELIGION NEED NOT BE CONFINED THE ACTIVITIES INCIDENTAL TO A PLACE OF WORSHIP LIKE A TEMPLE'. IN PARA 15 OF THE ORDER, HIGH COURT HELD 'IT MIGHT WELL BE THAT A HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION LIKE THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ENGAGED IN CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE VERY MUCH PART OF RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY. IN CARRYING ON CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES ALONGWITH ORGANIZING OR SPIRITUAL LECTURERS, THE ASSESSEE BY NO MEANS CEASES TO BE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION. THE ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED BY THE ASSESSEE AS HAVING BEEN UNDERTAKEN BY IT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION CAN BE INCLUDED IN THE BROAD CONSPECTUS OF HINDU RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY WHEN VIEWED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AND ITS ACTIVITIES IN GENERAL'. 9 6. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE TRUST CONTINUES TO ENJOY THE REGISTRATION U/S 12A AND THERE IS NO PROCEEDINGS INITIATED FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REGISTRATION AND ASSESEE IS CONTINUING THE ACTIVITIES AND WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR I.E. IMPARTING SPIRITUAL LECTURES THROUGH VARIOUS MODES. REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF TV EXPENDITURE AFTER INVOKING PROVISION OF SECTION 13(1)(C) HE HELD THAT NO BENEFIT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY HAS GONE TO ANY OF THE TRUST BECAUSE THE DOMINANT PURPOSE FOR SUCH KIND OF TELECAST FOR MONEY WAS TO IMPART DISCOURSES AND NOT TO GAIN ANY PERSONAL BENEFIT AS ENVISAGED IN THE CLAUSES OF SECTION 13(2). HE FURTHER HELD THAT IF SUCH A PRESUMPTION PREMISE OF THE AO IS TAKEN THEN IT WILL RESULT INTO DENIAL OF EXEMPTION TO MOST OF THE TRUST ENGAGED IN CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES IN PUBLIC DOMAIN ON ACCOUNT OF SO CALLED GAINING OF POPULARITY AND GOOD WILL BY THE PERSONS SPECIFIED U/S 13(3) WHICH WAS NEVER BEEN THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE BECAUSE SECTION 13(2) HAS SPECIFIED THE VARIOUS NATURE OF BENEFITS DISENTITLING THE TRUST BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION. LASTLY, ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITION OF RS. 50 LACS ON UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ON SAMAGAM EXPENSES HE ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE ONUS WAS ON THE AO TO BRING ON RECORD EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE NOT FOUND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HERE IN THIS CASE, THE AO HAS MISERABLY FAILED. THUS AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSION HE HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11(1). 7. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST SUBMITTED THAT THIS PRECISE ISSUE HAS COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND ITA NO. 5812/2012 WHEREIN THIS TRIBUNAL HELD THAT ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE WERE WITHIN THE HINDU RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE TRIBUNAL ORDER WAS ALSO SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT BY THE REVENUE AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AFTER NOTING SIMILAR OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE 10 REVENUE HAD UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN A VERY DETAILED AND SPEAKING MANNER. HE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO VARIOUS OBJECTIONS AND THE FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT RAISED SPECIFICALLY GIVEN AT PAGE 8,15,16. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT YEAR ALSO THERE IS NO CHANGE IN FACTS BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED A TEMPLE. EARLIER THE DEPARTMENTS OBJECTION WAS THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESEES TRUST IS SPIRITUAL AND NOT RELIGIOUS AND THIS YEAR THE AO HAS SOUGHT IT A RELIGIOUS. THUS, THERE IS AN INHERENT CONTRADICTION IN THE STAND OF THE DEPARTMENT WHEREAS THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT THREADBARE BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE THERE REMAINS NO BASIS FOR DENYING EXEMPTION U/S 11(1) IN THIS YEAR. IN SO FAR AS OTHER OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO AND DISALLOWANCE OF 1/3 OF EXPENDITURE OF TV EXPENSES, HE SUBMITTED THAT FIRST OF ALL AO HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY MONETARY BENEFIT DERIVED BY GURUDEV BY SAMAGAM AND NO IOTA FOR INSTANCE HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT OR IDENTIFIED BY THE AO WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN THE BENEFIT OF GURUJI IN TERMS OF SECTION 13(2). THE BENEFIT MUST BE SUCH THE SAME SHOULD BE CAPABLE OF BEING QUANTIFIED NOT ON THE BASIS OF ANY KIND OF CONJECTURE AND SURMISES. LASTLY ON THE ISSUE OF ADHOC ESTIMATION OF RS. 50 LACS WHICH HAS BEEN INCURRED ON ORGANISING SAMAGAM HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN EXPENDITURE OF RS. 9,23,944/- WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO. HOWEVER WITHOUT ANY BASIS OR MATERIAL HE HAS ESTIMATED SUM OF RS. 50 LACS COMPLETELY BASED ON HYPNOTICALLY WHICH CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. ACCORDINGLY ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE UPON. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE VARIOUS OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO SUBMITTED THAT AO HAS TRIED TO DISTINGUISH THE FACTS ON THE EARLIER YEARS AND HAVE GIVEN A VERY DETAILED REASONING AS TO WHY THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT FROM EARLIER YEARS AND IN ANY CASE THE ASSESSEES ENTIRE ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSE AND NO SUCH OBJECTS OF RELIGIOUS PURPOSE HAS BEEN ENSHRINED IN THE 11 TRUST DEED AND, THEREFORE, SUCH ACTIVITIES BEYOND THE OBJECTS CANNOT ENTITLED THE ASSEEES TRUST FOR BENEFITING U/S 11(1). UNFORTUNATELY, THERE IS NO SUCH ARGUMENTS NOTED BY HIM. THUS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE BEING PURELY RELIGIOUS IN NATURE AND NOT GIVEN IN THE TRUST DEED THEREFORE ENTIRE BENEFIT U/S 11(1) GETS FORFEITED. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION, PERUSED THE RELEVANT FINDING GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT BASED ON THE OBJECTS AS ENSHRINED IN THE TRUST DEED THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN REGISTRATION U/S 12A AND SUCH A REGISTRATION HAS NEITHER BEEN REVOKED NOR CANCELLED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY . IT IS A TRITE LAW IF ANY PROOF OR INSTITUTION HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12A THEN INCOME OF SUCH TRUST HAS TO BE CONSTITUTED STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 11 TO 13.THIS IS A WHICH AO HAS TO STRICTLY ADHERED TO. IF ASSESEE IS NOT CARRYING OUT ANY ACTIVITY AS PER ITS OBJECTS THEN ONLY THE AUTHORITY GRANTING REGISTRATION HAS THE POWER TO CANCEL THE REGISTRATION OR VIEW THE SAME. HERE IN THIS CASE , THERE COULD NOT BE ANY DISPUTE THAT THE OBJECTS AS INCORPORATED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS CONTINUES THE SAME AS WAS THERE IN THE EARLIER YEARS. THAT MEANS THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE OBJECTS. THE ENTIRE CASE OF THE AO REVOLVES AROUND THE PREMISE THAT ASSESSEE IN THIS YEAR HAS CARRIED OUT MAINLY RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES SIMPLY BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED ONE MANDIR DEVOTED TO HINDU GOD AND GODDESS. AND IT IS ON THIS FACT HE HAS TRIED TO TAKE A DIVERGENT VIEW FROM THE EARLIER YEARS AND ALSO NOT FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENCE OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HE HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED THAT TRUST HAS BEEN HOLDING SPIRITUAL AND RELIGIOUS DISCOURSES AT VARIOUS SAMAGAM AND ALSO ON TV CHANNELS WHICH ARE CONDUCTED AND ADDRESSED BY BRAMRISHI SHREE KUMAR SWAMIJI WHEREIN THE DISCIPLES / PARTICIPANTS ARE GIVEN 12 IMPARTED THAT DISEASE, MENTAL TENSIONS AND MATERIALIST WORRIES. HE HAS ALSO TRIED TO DISTINGUISH THE WORDS RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL ARE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS AND THEY CANNOT BE TREATED AS ONE AND THE SAME AND IT IS FOR THIS REASON ALSO HE HAS TRIED TO DISTINGUISH THE PAST PRECEDENCE. HE FURTHER HELD THAT INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE TO COVER TRUST FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE WHICH ARE FOR RELIGIOUS FOR CHARITABLE AND SINCE HERE IN THIS CASE NONE OF THE OBJECTS ARE RELIGIOUS, THEREFORE , ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD TOBE RELIGIOUS TRUST. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL AFTER NOTING DOWN THE SINGLE OBJECTS AT PARA 10.4 HAVE ALSO OCCASIONED TO DISCUSS THE CONCEPT OF THE TERM WHOLLY FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES OR WHOLLY FOR RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE PURPOSES. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS ON THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 10.6 TO 10.9 FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER :- 10.6. THE TERM' 'WHOLLY FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES' OR 'WHOLLY FOR RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE PURPOSES' HAVE NOT BEEN DEFINED UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT. AS PER GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF INTERPRETATION, EXPRESSIONS WHICH ARE NOT DEFINED IN A STATUTE SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO GIVE THEM SENSIBLE MEANING HAVING REGARD TO WELL KNOWN AND ACCEPTED CONCEPTS SO AS NOT TO LEAD TO A MANIFESTLY ABSURD OR ANOMALOUS RESULT WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN INTENDED BY THE LEGISLATURE. HENCE THE EXPRESSION. 'RELIGION' HAS TO BE APPROPRIATELY CONSTRUED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DOCUMENT I.E. THEN TRUST DEED IN THE PRESENT CASE. BEFORE WE PROCEED TO CONSIDER THE TRUST DEED, IT ALSO NEEDS TO BE KEPT IN MIND THAT IT IS A WELL ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE OF INTERPRETATION THAT THE NOMENCLATURE ADOPTED BY THE PARTIES IN ANY DOCUMENT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE TO INDICATE THE REAL NATURE OF THE DOCUMENT OR THE INTENTION IT ACTUALLY RECORDS. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO SEE AND EXAMINE WHAT IN TRUTH IS THE ESSENTIAL AND FACTUAL NATURE OF THE DOCUMENT. THIS RULE RELATING TO INCONCLUSIVENESS OF THE NOMENCLATURE ADOPTED IS MORE RELEVANT IN 13 INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENT THEN ON LAW AND COURT IS NEVER FOUND OR CONCLUDED BY LANGUAGE WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN USED IN THE DOCUMENT. HENCE IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE EXPRESSION 'SPIRITUAL' USED IN THE TRUST DEED CONVEYED ITS REAL NATURE AND MEANING IT MUST FOLLOW THAT IT IS THE TRUST DEED ITSELF AND ITS FORM AND CONTENT WHICH IS TO BE EXAMINED AND CONSIDERED ALONGWITH THE EXPRESSION 'SPIRITUAL' AS UNDERSTOOD IN ITS POPULAR SENSEUTI LOQUITOR VULGUS SO AS TO BE IN ACCORD WITH THE REAL INTENTION OF THE PARTIES AS APPEARING FROM THE INSTRUMENT. 10.7. ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE ALONGWITH THE FINDINGS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH HAVE BEEN EXTRACTED IN PARA 2 & 3 OF THIS ORDER, IT IS SEEN THAT WHILE CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION QUA THE ANONYMOUS DONATIONS WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE VOLUNTARY DONATIONS BY THE ASSESSEE, THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE COME TO THE INCORRECT CONCLUSION THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN SPIRITUAL LECTURES WHICH ACCORDING TO THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED WAS MISTAKENLY AND ERRONEOUSLY CONSIDERED TO BE A BAR TO THE ASSESSEE IN CLAIMING THAT THE RIGOURS OF SEC. L15BBC WERE NOT ATTRACTED. THE SAID CONCLUSION HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES ON CONSIDERING THE ANONYMOUS DONATIONS IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE NEWLY INSERTED SECTION L15BBC AND THE AFORESAID CIRCULAR NO.14 OF THE CBDT WHICH EXPLAINED THE SAME. ON CONSIDERING THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE PROCEEDED ON A VERY NARROW AND INCORRECT UNDERSTANDING IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS ENGAGED IN SPREADING SPIRITUALITY AND SINCE SECTION LL5BBC ONLY EXEMPTS RELIGIOUS TRUST, A TRUST ALLEGEDLY IMPARTING SPIRITUAL KNOWLEDGE WAS CONSEQUENTLY NOT CONTEMPLATED AS AN EXCEPTION BY THE LEGISLATURE AS MUCH AS IT 14 CONSEQUENTLY IS BARRED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION VIS-A-VIS THE ANONYMOUS DONATION. 10.8. WE HAVE EXTRACTED THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AND ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE SAME, WE HOLD THAT THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES ARE INCORRECT ON FACTS AND LAW. IT IS SEEN THAT ONLY IN CLAUSE (VIII) OF THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST, IT IS SET OUT THAT THE TRUST IMPARTS SPIRITUAL LECTURES TO 'MENTALLY DISTURBED' AND 'TO ALL HUMAN BEINGS'. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE SAME WE FIND THAT THE SAID AIM HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE CONTEXT OF AND READ ALONGWITH THE OTHER OBJECTS OF THE TRUST WHOSE TARGET GROUPS ARE WIDOWS, ORPHANS, OLD AND INFIRM PEOPLE, DESTITUTES, ILLITERATE, HANDI-CAPPED, MENTALLY RETARDED, PROVIDING FOOD AND SHELTER TO POOR AND NEEDY, NIGHT SHELTER, NARI-NIKETAN/ MAHILA ASHRAM, WEAKER SECTIONS AND ALL OTHER GROUPS WHO CAN BE INCLUDED IN THE PHRASE IN 'NEED OF PHYSICAL, MENTAL AND FINANCIAL HELP'; INCLUDING AND NOT EXCLUSIVELY AFFECTED ON ACCOUNT OF NATURAL CALAMITIES. ETC. LIKE FLOOD, FIRE, FAMINE, DROUGHT, EARTH-QUAKES, STORM, ACCIDENT, PESTILENCE, DROUGHT, EPIDEMICS ETC. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE ENUMERATED LIST WHEN TAKEN IN THE CONTEST OF EXTREME DEVASTATING TRAGEDIES AND THE NEEDS OF DESTITUTE; OLD AGE; INFIRM ETC NEEDS NO SPECIFIC TREATISE TO BRING OUT THE POTENTIAL IMPORTANCE AND BENEFITS OF SPIRITUAL LECTURE TO THE TARGET GROUP OF MENTALLY DISTURBED, DESTITUTE DUE TO CALAMITIES, NATURAL OR MAN-MADE, AGE, ORPHANED, WIDOWED ETC. THE POTENTIAL BENEFIT AND SUCCOR TO THESE TARGET GROUPS BY WAY OF SOME PHILOSOPHY OR IMPARTING OF BELIEF THAT THERE IS SOME POWER BEYOND ALL THIS WHICH IS WATCHING OUT FOR THEM CANNOT EITHER BE UNDER-ESTIMATED OR OVER-EMPHASIZED AND HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE. THE FACT THAT THESE ARGUMENTS/PHILOSOPHY ON THE TOUCHSTONE OF SCIENCE MAY FAIL AND TO SOME OF US NON-BELIEVERS MAYBE ONLY RHETORIC IS NOT A RELEVANT 15 CONSIDERATION AS WHAT CANNOT BE CURED HAS TO BE ENDURED, FOR A PERSON ON HIS LAST BREATH IS NO REASON TO CALLOUSLY SUBSCRIBE TO THE PHILOSOPHY THAT SUCH A PERSON SHOULD BE DEPRIVED OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL COMFORT OF BELIEVING THAT SOMEWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A: GREATER PURPOSE IN GOING THROUGH THE PAINFUL EXPERIENCE. THE ISSUE IS NOT WHAT WE BELIEVE BUT WHAT STRENGTH CAN BE IMPARTED TO A POTENTIAL DESTITUTE, SUFFERER. THE OBJECTS OF AMELIORATING THEIR MISERIES, PROVIDING NIGHT SHELTER, SELF- HELP CAPABILITY, KNOWLEDGE DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD MEDICINES ETC COUPLED WITH SOLACE IN THE NAME OF GOD CANNOT BE OUTRIGHTLY REJECTED AND MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIMITING ITSELF TO DISBURSING FOOD MEDICINE, PROVIDING SHELTER ETC AND IS ALSO GIVING LECTURES ON SPIRITUALITY WAS NOT THE KIND OF ASSESSEE CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 115BBC WHO WAS TO BE VISITED BY THE RIGOURS OF THE SAID SECTION. 10.9. WE ALSO HOLD ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE TERMS 'RELIGION'; 'RELIGIOUS 'SPIRITUALITY' AND 'SPIRITUAL', THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PRESENT CASE, NO LENGTHY DELIBERATIONS ON THE AFORESAID TERMS IS NECESSARY. SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT TO OUR UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT OF RELIGION DIVORCED FROM SPIRITUALISM MAY BE POSSIBLE AS IT MAY BE POSSIBLE FOR RELIGION TO EXIST IN A PURELY RITUALISTIC MANNER BUT SPIRITUALISM DIVORCED FROM RELIGION IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE VISUALIZED AND CONCEIVED. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE LECTURES/DISCOURSES ON THE TEACHINGS OF THE PREVALENT AND PREDOMINANT RELIGIONS OF THE COUNTRY ARE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN AS WOULD BE FOUND FROM THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS EXTRACTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH HAVE ALSO BEEN REPRODUCED FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS. IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT DURING THESE LECTURES VOLUNTARY DONATIONS BY THE ATTENDEES HAVE BEEN MADE WHICH CONSTITUTES THE ANONYMOUS DONATIONS. THE DEPARTMENT IT IS SEEN 16 HAS CONSIDERED THESE VOLUNTARY DONATIONS EXIGIBLE TO TAX ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS NOT FULFILLING THE REQUIREMENTS OF A PUBLIC RELIGIOUS TRUST. WE HAVE SEEN AND DISCUSSED AT LENGTH AND COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AND THE CONTEXT IN WHICH SPIRITUAL LECTURES ESPOUSING THE PHILOSOPHY I.E. THE SPIRITUALITY OF THE MAJOR AND PREDOMINANT RELIGIONS OF THE COUNTRY NEEDS TO CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE WELL- ACCEPTED AND WELL-KNOWN FACT THAT ALL THE MAJOR RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD WITH ONE VOICE EULOGISE THE IMPORTANCE OF TAKING CARE OF THE OLD, INFIRM, DISABLED, VISITED BY MISFORTUNE ETC. ON ACCOUNT OF SOME NATURAL OR MAN-MADE CALAMITY, WIDOWED, ORPHANED ETC. AND THESE DISCUSSIONS/LECTURES ARE NOT DIVORCED FROM RELIGION AS MANKIND IS EXHORTED IN THE NAME OF GOD AND SAINTS TO TAKE CARE OF THE WEAK AND THE NEEDY. ACCORDINGLY CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE CONSPECTUS OF FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND POSITION OF LAW, WE HOLD THAT THE REVENUE HAS INCORRECTLY APPLIED SECTION 115BBC TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE. 10. IN THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AGAINST THE SAID JUDGEMENT THE HIGH COURT HAS NOTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. SR. STANDING COUNSEL OF THE REVENUE HAD DISCUSSED THE ISSUE THREADBARE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER :- 8. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY MR. KAMAL SAWHNEY THAT NONE OF THE ACTIVITIES STATED IN CLAUSE 5 OF THE TRUST DEED CAN BE SAID TO BE A PURELY RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY. IN OTHER WORDS CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES ENUMERATED THEREIN COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES. ACCORDING TO MR. SAWHNEY, EVEN GIVING OF SPIRITUAL LECTURES WOULD NOT STRICTLY QUALIFY AS A RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY. 17 THEREAFTER THEIR LORDSHIP POSED A QUESTION FOR ADJUDICATION WHETHER DONATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST WHICH HAS BEEN TAXED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF 115BBC SIMPLY BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT HAS HELD THAT ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST WAS SPIRITUAL AND NOT RELIGIOUS. THEIR LORDSHIP HAVE ANSWERED THE SAID QUESTION IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER :- 11. THEREFORE, IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE ITAT WAS ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE JUSTIFIED IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 115 BBC AS FAR AS THE ANONYMOUS DONATIONS RECEIVED BY IT WERE CONCERNED. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE ITAT ITSELF, THE ABOVE QUESTION CANNOT BE ADDRESSED WITHIN THE NARROW SCOPE OF THE SPECIFIC WORDING OF SOME OF THE CLAUSES OF THE TRUST DEED BUT IN THE OVERALL CONTEXT OF THE ACTUAL ACTIVITIES IN WHICH THE TRUST IS INVOLVED IN INCLUDING IMPARTING SPIRITUAL EDUCATION TO THE PERSON OF ALL CASTES AND RELIGIONS, ORGANIZING SAMAGAMS, DISTRIBUTION OF FREE MEDICINES AND CLOTHES TO THE NEEDY AND DESTITUTE, PROVISION OF FREE AMBULANCE SERVICE FOR NEEDY AND DESTITUTE PATIENTS AND SO ON. 12. IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. DAWOODI BOHRA JAMAT (SUPRA), THE SUPREME COURT, AFTER ANALYSING THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST IN THAT CASE HELD THAT THEY WERE NOT INDICATIVE OF A WHOLLY RELIGIOUS PURPOSE BUT WERE COLLECTIVE INDICATIVE OF BOTH CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. IT WAS HELD IN THE CONTEXT OF THAT CASE THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MADARSAS OR INSTITUTIONS TO IMPART RELIGIOUS EDUCATION TO THE MASSES WOULD QUALIFY AS A CHARITABLE PURPOSE QUALIFYING UNDER THE HEAD OF THE EDUCATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE OBJECTS REFLECTED THE INTENT OF THE TRUST AS OBSERVANCE OF THE TENETS OF ISLAM, BUT DID NOT RESTRICT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST TO RELIGIOUS 18 OBLIGATIONS ONLY AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY. IT WAS EMPHASIZED THAT : IN CERTAIN CASES, THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST MAY CONTAIN ELEMENTS OF BOTH RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE AND THUS, BOTH THE PURPOSES MAY BE OVERLAPPING. MORE SO WHEN THE RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY A PARTICULAR SECTION OF PEOPLE WOULD BE A CHARITABLE ACTIVITY FOR OR TOWARDS OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY AND ALSO PUBLIC AT LARGE. FOR EXAMPLE, THE PRACTICE OF OPTION CHARITY IN THE FORM OF KHAIRAT OR SADAQUAH UNDER THE MOHAMMADAN LAW WOULD BE COVERED UNDER BOTH CHARITABLE AS WELL AS RELIGIOUS PURPOSE. FURTHER, WHILE PROVIDING FOOD AND FODDER TO ANIMALS ESPECIALLY COW IS RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY FOR HINDUS, IT WOULD BE CHARITABLE IN RESPECT TO NON- HINDUS AS WELL. SIMILARLY, SERVICE OF WATER TO THE THIRSTY WOULD FIND MENTION AS RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY IN SACRED TEXTS AND AT THE SAME TIME WOULD QUALIFY AS A CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 13. WHAT CAN CONSTITUTE RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE HINDU RELIGION NEED NOT BE CONFINED THE ACTIVITIES INCIDENTAL TO A PLACE OF WORSHIP LIKE A TEMPLE. THE SUPREME COURT IN THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS, MADRAS V. SRI LAKSHMINDRA THIRTHA SWAMIAR 1954 AIR 282 SC HELD THAT A RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION OR ORGANISATION ENJOYS COMPLETE AUTONOMY IN THE MATTER OF DECIDING AS TO WHAT RITES AND CEREMONIES ARE ESSENTIAL ACCORDING TO THE TENETS OF THE RELIGION THEY HOLD AND NO OUTSIDE AUTHORITY HAS ANY JURISDICTION TO INTERFERE WITH THEIR DECISION IN SUCH MATTERS. IT EXAMINED THE SCOPE OF THE PROTECTION 19 UNDER ARTICLE 25 AND 26 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS : 14. WE NOW COME TO ARTICLE 25 WHICH, AS ITS LANGUAGE INDICATES, SECURES TO EVERY PERSON, SUBJECT TO PUBLIC ORDER, HEALTH AND MORALITY, A FREEDOM NOT ONLY TO ENTERTAIN SUCH RELIGIOUS BELIEF, AS MAY BE APPROVED OF BY HIS JUDGMENT AND CONSCIENCE, BUT ALSO TO EXHIBIT HIS BELIEF IN SUCH OUTWARD ACTS AS HE THINKS PROPER AND TO PROPAGATE OR DISSEMINATE HIS IDEAS FOR THE EDIFICATION OF OTHERS. 17..WHAT THEN ARE MATTERS OF RELIGION? THE WORD RELIGION HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED IN THE CONSTITUTION AND IT IS A TERM WHICH IS HARDLY SUSCEPTIBLE OF ANY RIGID DEFINITION. A RELIGION UNDOUBTEDLY HAS ITS BASIS IN A SYSTEM OF BELIEFS OR DOCTRINES WHICH ARE REGARDED BY THOSE WHO PROFESS THAT RELIGION AS CONDUCTIVE TO THEIR SPIRITUAL WELL BEING, BUT IT WOULD NOT BE CORRECT TO SAY THAT RELIGION IS NOTHING ELSE BUT A DOCTRINE OF BELIEF. A RELIGION MAY NOT ONLY LAY DOWN A CODE OF ETHICAL RULES FOR ITS FOLLOWERS TO ACCEPT, IT MIGHT PRESCRIBE RITUALS AND OBSERVANCES, CEREMONIES AND MODES OF WORSHIP WHICH ARE REGARDED AS INTEGRAL PARTS OF RELIGION, AND THESE FORMS AND OBSERVANCES MIGHT EXTEND EVEN TO MATERS OF FOOD AND DRESS. 14. THIS POSITION WAS REITERATED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN RATILAL PANACHAND GANDHI V. THE STATE OF BOMBAY AIR 1954 SC 388. IN THE CASE OF SASTRI YAGNAPURUSHADJI V. MULDAS BHUDARDAS VAISHYA AIR 1966 SC 1119 THE SUPREME COURT POINTED OUT THAT WHAT CONSTITUTES A RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY UNDER THE HINDU FAITH IS VERY BROAD IN NATURE. IT HELD : 20 29. WHEN WE THINK OF THE HINDU RELIGION, WE FIND IT DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, TO DEFINE HINDU RELIGION OR EVEN ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE IT....IT MAY BROADLY BE DESCRIBED AS A WAY OF LIFE AND NOTHING MORE. 15. IT MIGHT WELL BE THAT A HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION LIKE THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ENGAGED IN CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE VERY MUCH PART OF RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY. IN CARRYING ON CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES ALONG WITH ORGANISING OF SPIRITUAL LECTURES, THE ASSESEE BY NO MEANS CEASES TO BE A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION. THE ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED BY THE ASSESSEE AS HAVING BEEN UNDERTAKEN BY IT DURING THE AY IN QUESTION CAN BE INCLUDED IN THE BROAD CONSPECTUS OF HINDU RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY WHEN VIEWED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AND ITS ACTIVITIES IN GENERAL. 16. FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED REASONS, THE COURT FINDS NO LEGAL INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION OF THE ITAT THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 115 BBC (2)(A) ANONYMOUS DONATIONS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESEE WOULD QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION AND IT CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN ITS ASSESSABLE INCOME. 11. THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST AND LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THESE ACTIVITIES ARE FOR IMPARTING SPIRITUAL EDUCATION TO THE PERSONS OF ALL THE CASTE AND RELIGION BY ORGANISING SAMAGAM DISTRIBUTION OF FREE MEDICINES, ETC. TO NEEDY AND DISABLED PEOPLE. THEY HAVE ALSO QUOTED THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS BHAGWAN SHREE LAXMI NARAINDHAM TRUST (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS DEFINED THE CONCEPT OF RELIGION AND ALSO IN ANOTHER JUDGMENT AS QUOTED IN PARA 14 THEIR LORDSHIP HAS ALSO DEFINED THE RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES UNDER THE HINDU FAITH WHICH IS MAINLY A WAY OF LIFE. AFTER REFERRING TO THESE JUDGMENTS THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT THE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS LIKE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO ENGAGED IN CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE VERY MUCH 21 PART OF RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES AND SUCH ACTIVITIES ALONGWITH ORGANISING SPIRITUAL LECTURES BY NO MEANS TO BE A RELIGION INSTITUTION AND HAS TO BE SEEN IN THE CONTEXT OF OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AND ACCORDINGLY BY SUCH REASONING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS AFFIRMED. WE DO NOT FIND THAT THE RATIOS AND THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE EARLIER YEAR IN ANY MANNER GETS DILUTED IN THIS YEAR BY THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE AO. WE FIND IT VERY DIFFICULT TO FATHOM THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE ASSESSSEES ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE RELIGIOUS BY THE AO THEN SAME IS EITHER NOT CHARITABLE OR ASSESSEE ON HIS TRANSGRESS ITS ACTIVITIES FROM THE OBJECTS THE SO CALLED RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES HERE IN THIS CASE IS NOTHING BUT SPIRITUAL ACTIVITIES BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN MAKING SPIRITUAL AND RELIGIOUS DISCOURSES IN VARIOUS SAMAGAMS FOR PROVIDING SPIRITUAL HEALING TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. IN A COUNTRY LIKE INDIA THE RELIGION IS MOSTLY A WAY OF LIFE AND THE GOAL FOR EVERY HUMAN HAS BEEN FOR SPIRITUAL UPLIFTMENT WHICH IN TURN GIVES STRENGTH TO OVERCOME MANY PROBLEMS ARISING FROM MATERIALISTIC WORRIES. SUCH KIND OF SPIRITUAL AND RELIGIOUS DISCOURSES IN OUR COUNTRY HAS TO BE SEEN FROM A BROADER PERSPECTIVE AND AS QUOTED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FALLS IN THE BROAD CONCEPTS OF HINDU RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES WHICH IS WITHIN THE PERMISSIBLE OBJECTS OF TRUST WHICH IS GIVING SPIRITUAL LECTURES TO THE NEEDY PERSONS. THUS THE OBSERVATIONS AND THE FINDINGS OF THE AO THAT IT IS PURELY A RELIGIOUS TRUST AND HENCE THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 12. COMING TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. AO WE DO NOT FIND ANY DISTINGUISH ON MERITS BECAUSE 1/3 DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE ON TELECAST OF SAMAGAM, THERE MIGHT BE SOME KIND OF BENEFIT TO GURUJI ONE OF THE PERSONS SPECIFIED U/S 13(3) BECAUSE SUCH TELECAST GOES PERSONAL BENEFIT TO THE PERSONALITY OF GURUDEVJI. THE LEGISLATURE HAS CATEGORICALLY GIVEN THE SPECIFIED NATURE OF BENEFITS FOR WHICH SECTION 13(2) CAN BE INVOKED. NO SUCH BENEFITS HAVE BEEN PRESCRIBED BY THE 22 AO WHICH IS SIMPLY BASED ON HYPOTHECS THAT DEFECTS OF TV TELECAST BENEFITS TO THE GURUJI BECAUSE HE HAS BENEFITED BY THESE TV PROGRAMMES. IN FACT SUCH KIND OF SPIRITUAL LECTURES TELECAST COMES ON TV IS MAIN FOR GENERAL PUBLIC AT LARGE AND NOT FOR BENEFIT OF THE DELIVERY OF THE LECTURES. HENCE THIS CONTENTION OF THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS REJECTED. FURTHER ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS. 50 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF ANONYMOUS DONATIONS THAT ASSESEE MUST HAVE INCURRED EXPENDITURE FROM ANONYMOUS DONATIONS FOR ORGANISING SAMAGAM HERE ALSO WHEREAS IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE AO THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON SAMAGAM EXPENSES THEN HOW THERE BEING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD HE CAN HOLD THAT ASSESEE MUST HAVE SPENT RS. 50 LACS WHICH IN TURN MUST HAVE GIVEN THROUGH ANONYMOUS DONATIONS. ACCORDINGLY THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AFFIRMED. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT DIRECTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO ALLOW EXEMPTION/BENEFIT U/S 11(1). 13. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH MARCH, 2019. SD/- SD/- (G.D. AGRAWAL) (AMIT SHUKLA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 08 /03/2019 VEENA COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI