SRI ASHVALAYANA VRUNDA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(E), the assessee has filed these appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed two sets of paper book, one enclosing therein the case laws relied on and the other enclosing therein the trust deed dated 05.06.2020, the amended trust deed dated 29.08.2022, the application for registration u/s 12AA, the application for grant of approval u/s 80G, the audited financial statements, communication issued during the course of proceedings u/s 12A and 80G etc. The learned AR submitted that the CIT(E) has erred in holding the assessee as a religious trust by stating that Vedas are Hindu religious scriptures. The learned AR by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr.Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Shri Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte & Others in Civil Appeal No.2835 of 1989 (judgment dated 11.12.1995) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of TT Kuppuswamy Chettiar & Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. reported in CS No.126 of 1976 (judgment dated 16.06.1987), submitted that Hinduism is a way of life and not a religion. It was submitted that teaching of Vedas involves imparting of knowledge and are part of the intangible cultural heritage of humanity as declared by UNESCO. The learned AR distinguished the case laws relied on by the CIT(E). It was submitted that the assessee-trust had not constructed a prayer hall or other place of worship, which are exclusively religious activities. Further, the learned AR submitted that the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Umaid Charitable Trust v. UOI reported in (2008) 307 ITR 226 (Raj.) had distinguished the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. reported in (1997) 93 taxmann 65 (SC) relied on by the CIT(E).

The objects of the Trust shall include the following: (a) To protect, preserve, teach, impart and spread the knowledge of VEDAS; (b) To spread vedic education, vedic chanting and its knowledge. to encourage and teach the tradition of Vedic Chanting in India which has been declared and notified by the UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) in the Intangible Cultural Heritage List (Proclaimed in 2003 and Inscribed in 2008); (c) To protect, preserve, teach, spread and encourage the knowledge of Indian heritage and culture contained in various Dharma Granthas, Dharma Shastras, Sutras, Shruti, Smruti, Puranas etc.; (d) To teach, impart and encourage YOGA; (e) To teach, impart and encourage the learning of Sanskrit; (f) To support the Schools or Institutions having Indian Heritage Education; (g) To encourage students of studies having Indian Heritage Value; (h) To financially support the deserving students, teachers and scholars involved in learning of Indian Heritage Education; (i) To financially support the deserving students, teachers and scholars, involved in learning of Indian Heritage Education, for their modern education; (j) To help in building the infrastructure to teach modern education to those pursuing traditional Indian Heritage education; (k) To provide financial scholarship to those pursuing specialization on Heritage studies; (l) To work for the cause of Heritage education, to provide financial assistance for the medical expenses of students, teachers and scholars involved in Indian Heritage Education; (m) To give financial aid to the deserving parents sending their offspring for Heritage studies; (n) To encourage those doing research on the meaning of Vedas for the benefit of all; (o) To create zeal amidst students to excel and pursue deeper and wider into Heritage Education; (p) To support education to all without any barrier of caste, creed and religion as per Indian Law; (q) To work for National Integration, to promote universal brotherhood and to spread harmony among all sections of people of India (r) To establish and run GOSHALAS (s) To create employment opportunities and to help the deserving candidates in getting employment in the Indian Heritage system.

(i) The income of the Trust is not liable to inclusion in its total income under section 11, 12, 10(23AA), 10(23C) as the case may be.

(ii) The instrument under which the institution or fund is constituted does not, or the rules governing the institution or fund do not, contain any provision for the transfer or application at any time of the whole or any part of the income or assets of the institution or fund for any purpose other than a charitable purpose; (iii) the institution or fund is not expressed to be for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste; (iv) the institution or fund maintains regular accounts of its receipts and expenditure; (v) the institution or fund is either constituted as a public charitable trust or is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860), or under any law corresponding to that Act in force in any part of India or under section 253 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or is a University established by law, or is any other educational institution recognised by the Government or by a University established by law, or affiliated to any University established by law, or is an institution financed wholly or in part by the Government or a local authority;

11. It is settled principle that Hinduism is a way of life and not a religion. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in TT Kuppuswamy Chettiar and others v State of Tamil Nadu (1987) 100 LW 1031 held as under:-

“The word ‘Hindu’ itself has not been defined in any of the texts, nor in any of the judge made laws. The definition of a ‘Hindu’ is also not available in the ancient texts. Even the renowned author of the Hindu Law, viz., Mulla has not defined the word ‘Hindu’. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, ‘Hindu’ means adherent of Hinduism; whereas the Chambers Dictionary defines ‘Hindu’ as a member of any of the races of Hindustan or India, a believer in a form of Brahmanism. A perusal of the history shows that the name ‘Hindu’ was given by the British authorities while dispensing justice with reference to the inheritance, partition, marriage and other personal laws of the inhabitants of this nation who are not Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Jains. The British Administrators sought the help of the local English knowing Sanskrit pundits who quoted widely the Vedas and Smritis (collection of precepts handed over by Rishis or sages of antiquity in Sanskrit). ……….. A study of the Sanskrit texts in English and the law administered in pursuance of thereof clearly shows that there is no religion by the name ‘Hindu’. The word ‘Hindu’ covers various sects such as …….. If one comprehends the aforesaid facts it will be very difficult to find a Hindu religion having a common faith, and a common founder because Hindu religion takes within its fold not only the four classes of persons viz., Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and Sudras, but also other religions viz., Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists. I am unable to comprehend as to how one religion can have several religions within its fold. It only shows that the so called Hindu religion has been coined for convenience.”

“These Constitution Bench decisions, after a detailed discussion, indicate that no precise meaning can be ascribed to the terms `Hindu', `Hindutva' and `Hinduism'; and no meaning in the abstract can confine it to the narrow limits of religion alone, excluding the content of Indian culture and heritage. It is also indicated that the term `Hindutva' is related more to the way of life of the people in the sub- continent. It is difficult to appreciate how in the face of these decisions the term `Hindutva' or `Hinduism' per se, in the abstract, can be assumed to mean and be equated with narrow fundamentalist Hindu religious bigotry, or be construed to fall within the prohibition in sub-sections (3) and/or (3A) of Section 123 of the R.P. Act.” Ordinarily, Hindutva is understood as a way of life or a state of mind and it is not to be equated with, or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism. “Thus, it cannot be doubted, particularly in view of the Constitution Bench decisions of this Court that the words `Hinduism' or `Hindutva' are not necessarily to be understood and construed narrowly, confined only to the strict Hindu religious practices unrelated to the culture and ethos of the people of India, depicting the way of life of the Indian people. Unless the context of a speech indicates a contrary meaning or use, in the abstract these terms are indicative more of a way of life of the Indian people and are not confined merely to describe persons practising the Hindu religion as a faith. Considering the terms `Hinduism' or `Hindutva' per se as depicting hostility, enmity or intolerance towards other religious faiths or professing communalism, proceeds form an improper appreciation and perception of the true meaning of these expressions emerging from the detailed discussion in earlier authorities of this Court.”

13. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT v Sri Radha Raman Niwas Trust [2014] 42 taxmann.com 77 affirmed the findings of the Tribunal, which held that to carry sewa puja of Sri Giridhari Ji and carry Akhand Naam Sankirtan uninterruptedly in Aashram is one type of meditation and yoga and is a charitable activity under section 2(15) of the I.T.Act. The High Court held that unless it was proved that the above activities was for any particular community or group of persons, it cannot be a ground to reject the registration u/s 12A and approval u/s 80G of the I.T.Act.

“The objects as has been pointed out by CIT, nowhere talks of advancement, support or propagation of a particular religion, worshipping of Lord Shiva, Hanumanji, Goddess Durga and maintaining of temple, in our opinion, cannot be regarded for the advancement support or propagation of a particular religion. No evidence or material was placed on record or brought before us by the learned DR which may prove that these object relate to a particular religion. No doubt the DR argued that it relate to Hindu Religion but in our opinion it is not so. Lord Shiva, Hanumanji, Goddess Durga does not represent any particular religion, they are merely regarded to be the super power of the universe.

12. Even we noted that all the building maintenance expenses, free food expenses and festival, prayer and daily expenses cannot be regarded to be the one incurred for religious object, even if the object is regarded to be religious one. It is not denied that in the building the assessee was carrying yoga centre, tailoring training centre as well as food for the needy and optical centre for the poor.

observe that Hinduism is a way of life of a civilized society. It as such is not a religion. In this regard we rely on the case of T.T. Kuppuswamy Chettiar v. State of Tamil Nadu [1987] 100 LW 1031 in which it was held "The word "Hindu" has not been defined in any of the texts nor in judgment made law. The word was given by British administrators to inhabitants of India, who were not Christians, Muslims, Parsis or Jews. The alleged Hindu religion consists of four castes Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Sudras belonging ultimately to two schools of law, mitaksharas and dayabhaga. There is, however, no religion by the name 'Hindu'. It only shows that so called Hindu religion has been called for convenience." CIT must be aware of that the Hindu consists of a number of communities having the different gods who are being worshipped in a different manner, different rituals, different ethical codes. Even the worship of god is not essential for a person who has adopted Hinduism way of life. Thus, Hinduism holds within its fold men of divergent views and traditions who have very little in common except a vague faith in what may be called the fundamentals of the Hinduism. The word 'community' means a society of people living in the same place, under the same laws and regulations and who have common rights and privileges. This may apply to Christianity or moslem but not to Hinduism. Therefore, it cannot be said that Hindu is a separate community or a separate religion. Technically Hindu is neither a religion nor a community. Therefore, expenses incurred for worshipping of Lord Shiva, Hanuman, Goddess Durga and for maintenance of temple cannot be regarded to be for religious purpose. Under these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the CIT is not correct in law in not allowing the approval to the assessee trust u/s. 80G of the Act. We accordingly, set aside the order of the CIT and direct the CIT to grant approval to the assessee-trust u/s. 80G(5)(vi) of the Act.”

15. The ITAT Bangalore bench in M/s Sri Channamallikarjuna Trust Committee Gangavathi v CIT (E) – (order dated 4.5.2022) explained the difference between charitable purpose and religious purpose and held as under:- “13. In sections 11, 12 & 13, a distinction has been drawn between 'charitable purpose' and 'religious purposes', but there is no definition of the term 'religious purpose' in the Act. Generally interpreted, it would encompass within its fold all institutions or funds, which are for the advancement, support or propagation of a religion and its tenets. How religion is to be understood in the context of the Act, has been examined in the case of Dawoodi Bhora Jamat (supra). If the benefit of religious endowments too ensures for the benefit of the public, then the religious trusts/endowments too will be entitled to the exemption provided by section 11 of the Act. A religious trust could be 'public' or 'private'. Section 13(1)(a) bars exemption to any private religious trust, which does not enure for the benefit of the public. Section 80G(5)(iii) makes a distinction in cases of institutions or funds, which are for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste - say for Hindus, Muslims, Christians or for Brahmins, etc. Donors to such trusts are debarred from claiming benefit of deduction from income for donations made to such trusts. Conversely, it follows that for donations made to religious bodies, which do not fall in the category mentioned in section 80G(5)(iii), benefit of deduction under section 80G can be claimed. Thus, it could be said that a public religious trust, not meant for the benefit of a particular community, caste or section, will be entitled to claim exemption on its income in the same way as a public charitable trust.

16. In Vaidik Bhakti Sadan Asram v CIT [2010] 5 ITR (Trib) 590 (Delhi), the Tribunal held that propagation of vedic thoughts and philosophy cannot be attributed to any religion as the same are more concerned with the lifestyle of the human beings. The relevant observations are as under:-

“9. A perusal of the impugned order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax shows that the renewal of registration under section 80G was denied by him to the assessee-trust mainly on three grounds which have already been enumerated by us while narrating the facts of the case in the foregoing portion of this order. At the time, of hearing before us, learned counsel for the assessee has made elaborate submissions to meet all these objections raised by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax while denying exemption to the assessee under section 80G. As rightly pointed out by him, the objects and activities of the assessee- trust relating to propagation of vedic thoughts and philosophy cannot be attributed to any religion as the same are more concerned with the lifestyle of the human beings across the different religions and countries. It gets corroborated from the fact that yoga and self-meditation are being exercised and followed throughout the world by sections of people from different religions and different countries. These activities are thus not confined or attributed to any particular religion and the same, therefore, cannot be regarded as wholly or substantially of a religious nature. Moreover, as per the trust- deed, neither the trust nor its funds were expressed to be for the benefit of any particular religious community and as further pointed out by learned counsel for the assessee and remained uncontroverted by the learned Departmental representative, not even a single rupee was spent by the assessee-trust on religious activity.”

“10. To reiterate, 'Explanation 3 does not require the ascertainment of whether the whole or substantially the whole of the institution or fund's charitable purpose is of a religious nature. If it did, it would read differently. It requires the ascertainment of whether there is one purpose within the institution or fund's overall charitable purpose which is wholly, or substantially wholly, of a religious nature. There is little doubt that clause 2(h)of the trust deed which permits the trustees to support prayer halls and places of worship sets out a purpose the whole or substantially the whole of which is of a religious nature, and this has not been seriously disputed. Therefore, in our view, the Trust and the donation by the assessee to it fall outside the scope of section 80G.”

“33. The learned counsel for the revenue relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Upper Ganges Sugar Mills (supra), which has been relied upon by the learned CIT(A) also in the impugned order, it was held on the basis of one particular clause (2)(h) of the trust-deed which read "to establish, maintain and to grant and/or aid to public places of worship and prayer halls". The Hon'ble Supreme

Court dealing with Explanation4 of section 80G(5) held as under :

"To reiterate, Explanation 3 does not require the ascertainment of whether the whole or substantially the whole of the institution or fund's charitable purpose is of religious nature. If it did, it would read differently. It requires the ascertainment of whether there is one purpose within the institution or fund's overall charitable purpose which is wholly, or substantially wholly, of a religious nature. There is little doubt that clause 2(h) of the trust deed which permits the trustees to support prayer halls and places of worship sets out a purpose the whole or substantially the whole of which is of religious nature, and this has not been seriously disputed. Therefore, in our view, the trust and the donation by the assessee to it fall outside the scope of section 80G." (p. 582) The aforesaid case is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case as there is no clause in the trust deed in the present case which indicates that income of the petitioner- trust was to be applied wholly or substantially for any particular religion. Therefore, the said case has been clearly wrongly applied by the learned CIT(A) in the present case. In Sri Marudhar Kesari Sthanakwasi Jain Yadgar Samiti Trust's case (supra) also relied upon by the learned Counsel for the revenue, the facts of the case were distinguishable in the said case. Thus, the judgments cited and relied upon by the learned Counsel for the revenue are distinguishable on facts and do not support the case of the respondents. Since the law in the case of Upper Ganges Sugar Mills (supra) was laid down while dealing the case of deduction under section 80G of the Act in the hands of donor so also in the case of Sri Marudhar Kesari Sthanakwasi Jain Yadgar Samiti Trust (supra) by this Court, those judgments do not advance cause of the revenue. On the other hand, the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner fully support the case of the petitioner when the Courts have consistently held that it is the dominant object of the trust which is important and contribution and expenditure incurred by the petitioner-trust has to be viewed in light of the objects with which charitable trust in question was constituted.”

“The line of distinction between religious purposes and charitable purposes is very thin and no watertight compartment between the two activities can be established. Unless the objective of the charitable trust in question itself is to spend its income for a particular 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 expenditure is for an activity which may be termed as spending for a particular religion.” “A single contribution by the charitable trust to another trust which carried out repair and renovation of Lord Vishnu’s temple did not disentitle the petitioner-trust from renewal of its exemption certificate under section 80G. The repair and renovation of the temple did not 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 and have faith in different religions and also visit such temple of Lord Vishnu. The Revenue had not shown that entry to the temple was restricted to persons of one particular community or sect practising one religion. Hinduism is not one particular religion and different sects following Hindu philosophy do visit temples of the Lord Vishnu, be they Jains, Sikhs, Brahmins, etc. There is no watertight compartment between different castes or sects following one particular religion. Right to freedom of religion is guaranteed in the Constitution under article 25. Therefore, the Revenue could not take such a pedantic and narrow approach that the character of the charitable trust was lost if one particular expenditure was made for repair and renovation of Lord Vishnu’s temple and that too by way of contribution to another trust. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner was set aside and the petitioner-trust shall be deemed to be registered under section 80G throughout the period after April 1, 2004, with all consequential benefits.”

“Vedas: Universal appeal 4.6 Vedanta is the philosophy which analysed and taught man to be moral consciously. It is the essence of all religions. The Hindu scriptures teach that man is attracted to this earth to learn, more completely in each successive life, the infinite ways in which the Spirit may be expressed through, and be dominant over, material conditions. Slowly but surely, man, throughout the world, including India, across different religions, nationalities and ideologies, with the entering of the atomic age and the expansion of the world mind, is learning these truths. Wisdom garnered by India, the eldest brother among the nations, is a heritage of all mankind. Vedic truth, as all truth, belongs to the Lord and not to India. The Rishis, whose minds were pure receptacles to receive the divine profundities of the Vedas, were members of the human race, born on this earth to serve humanity as a whole. Distinction by race or nation is meaningless in the realm of truth, where the only qualification is spiritual fitness to receive. The time tested scriptures of the world are one in essence.” “Some overlap between the 'religious' and the 'charitable' is inherent in the very definitions of the two concepts, and has to be admitted and respected. Continuing further, we also observe that the activities of the trust are not confined to these activities alone, but is also undertaking purely charitable activities. As apparent from the Object Clause 2(c), (d), (f ), (i), (j) and (k ) of its Trust Deed, as well as the activities undertaken in pursuance of the same, as listed in the 'Note on its activities' (refer PB pgs. 8,9 and 10). In our considered view, therefore, the appellant-trust qualifies to be a charitable trust as well. Accordingly, it is to be allowed the status of a religious and charitable trust.”

Order pronounced on this 04th day of January, 2023.