AHIMSA PARMO DHARMA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DIT (E), MUMBAI

Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that assessee is a trust incorporated on 9-10-2013, registered with Charity Commissioner on 4-3-2014. The assessee trust filed an application for registration u/s.12A on 18-3-2014. The DIT(E) declined registration on the plea that as per clause 16B(viii) word "Upashraij" were mention. "Upashrau" is a Jain religious place. As per clause 16B(i) word "Panch Pratikraman" is an ancient teachings but the same is pertaining only to Jain Religious. As per clause 13 trust can received the monies 2 from “Worshipper". Therefore, it is a religious trust. As per clause 20 trust activities include prayers worship, rites and ceremonies. On perusal of the preamble of trust deed of the applicants reveals that settlor was desirous of creating a trust for public charitable purpose rather than religious purpose. But for that some clauses are religious and commercial in nature. Hence, it is mixed trust (Charitable & non charitable trust) with lack of binding legal obligation on trustees in regard to application of Income. Therefore, registration cannot be granted.

Against the above order of DIT(E) declining registration, the assessee approached to us and it was contended by ld. AR that assessee trust is duly charitable in nature and it cannot be termed as charitable and religious trust. However, the DIT(E) failed to consider that main object of the trust mentioned in clause 16, which are fully charitable in nature. He further contended that as per provision of clause 7 of trust deed, the trustee shall hold the trust funds for the public charitable purpose including relief to the poor/ deserving persons by all the means including distribution of food, grains, clothes and other articles, advancement of education, medical relief, construction of Dharmshala, Upashray, school, college, research centre, plantation.

On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the order of DIT(E) and contended that the object of the trust was not fully charitable, therefore, DIT(E) was justified in declining registration.

We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of authorities below and also deliberated on the judicial 3 pronouncements referred by the DIT(E) in his order as well as cited by ld. AR during the course of hearing before us. We had also carefully gone through the trust deed and found that the objects of the trust are wholly charitable in nature, hence, the trust cannot be termed as the Charitable and Religious Trust. Further the Clause 16B refer by the DIT(E) are extension of Object "Education" these are ancillary object of the main object of Education.

With regard to objection of DIT(E) in respect of clause 16B(viii), we found that the reading of the entire clause together it is found all these places are one category of places where the students and learner can stay to obtain the education. It is not exclusive clause of persons belonging to a particulars cast/ religion. These will be constructing with the sole object of transforming the people. Therefore, it cannot be treated to be for the benefit of a particular religion or community.

With regard to observation of DIT(E) in respect of clause 16B(i), we found that overall reading of this clause it is manifestly clear that the Trust intend to carry out object of general public utility and all words are to be read alongwith prefixed ancient teachings which do not pertain to any particular community or cast pr sect. The ancient teachings referred to the Panch Pratikaman, Sutras, Agams, Shastra, Vedas, Geeta, Ramayan, Bhagwat are nothing but teaching of morals and are being taught/studied all over the universe.

With regard to clause 20, it is general tradition of India that people do prayer, worship. Merely performing satyanarayan pooja does not mean 4 that the trust become religious. The activities provided in the clauses referred to is taken up as incidental and ancillary to attainment of the main objects and are for benefit of all communities in general and not for exclusive benefit of any community or religion. Spirituality is the inner self of every human being, the relief and education embraces both outer i.e. physical as well as the inner spirit of the human beings. Promotion of ancient spirituality i.e. for the complete exposition of inner humanity and the complete humanness is not an object of religious nature. Object clauses objected to by Id. DIT(E) cannot be said to be for the benefit of a particular religion or community, but, the same are for the benefit of the whole of the mankind. The morals of epics like Ramayana, Mahabharata and the teachings of the prophet or Jesus, Mahaveera, Gautham Buddha etc. all speak of the same. A synthetic teaching of these tenets of life addresses the concept of universal enhancement of values of human life and not just benefit only a particular religion or community. Even the veda, panch pratikamna cannot be treated as religious activity.

The ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Shiva Shakthi Shiridi Sai Anugraha Mahapeetam, Hyderabad Vs. DIT(E) [2015] 58 taxmann.com 209 (Hyderabad-Trib), held as under :- “9. However, careful analysis of the aforesaid clauses, makes it clear that neither they are for the benefit of a particular religion or community nor they are confined to particular class of people or people of a particular caste or creed. On the contrary, these object clauses certainly gives an impression that it is for the benefit of general public. As can be seen from clause xxvii, it speaks of teachings in Vedas and Upanishads, Quran and Bible and other scriptures for spreading the message of truth, non-violence, austerity, universal brotherhood or friendship, security and safety, fearlessness, love, peace, compassion, character and dedication 5 with the sole object of transforming the people. Therefore, it cannot be treated to be for the benefit of a particular religion or community. Similarly, propagating, intricacies and true consequences of sanathana dharma is also for the benefit of general public and cannot be confined to a particular religion or community. Producing/developing films or programmes on vedic scriptures, yoga and preaching of various gurus of various religions is also for uplifting the moral standards of general public and enhancing human values irrespective of religion, community, caste and creed. Similarly construction/maintenance/ management of community halls, meditation centers, spiritual centers, places of worship and prayer halls is not confined to any particular religion or community, but for the benefit of general public.

Thus, on careful reading of the object clauses in general and specifically clauses on which ld. DIT(E) has raised concern stating that they are for the benefit of a particular religious community, the impression one gets is there is nothing in these clauses which can lead one to believe that they are for the benefit of a particular religious community, hence, coming within the mischief of section 13(1)(a) or 13(1)(b) of the Act. On the contrary, these clauses, if at all they can be called to be of religious nature, are for the benefit of general public, hence, can be considered to be in the nature of any other object of general public utility as engrained in the definition of 'charitable purpose' u/s 2(15) of the Act. Law is well settled that ' any other object of general public utility' is of the widest connotation as the word 'general' in said expression signifies a whole class. Hence, advancement of any object of benefit to the public or a section of the public as distinguished from benefit to an individual or a group of individual would be a charitable purpose. The expression 'any other object of general public utility' would prima facie include all objects which promote the well being of the general public. It cannot be said that a purpose would cease to be charitable even when public welfare is intended to be served. Considered in the aforesaid perspective, there cannot be any doubt that the main object of the appellant trust is charitable in nature as it is for the benefit of general public. Even, ld. DIT(E) also accepts this position, though he observes that some of the object clauses are of religious nature. The Hon'ble supreme court in case of Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Mafrs. Association [1980] 121 ITR 1/[1979] 2 Taxman 501 and a number of other decisions held that if the primary purpose and predominant object of a trust are to promote welfare of the general public, the purpose would be charitable purpose. If the primary or predominant object of an institution is charitable, any other object which might not be charitable but which is ancillary or incidental to the dominant purpose, would not prevent the trust or institution from being a charitable trust.” In present case also the main object are charitable in nature and all the activities are not restricted to any cast or creed. Even these facts were 6 accepted by the DIT(E) as on in para 4, page 9 of the order (also reproduce as clause (e) of reason for denial of registration at page no.1 of Fact sheet. Panch Pratikams and other are just for teaching of morals to the general public. It is spread to general public, therefore, trust is an charitable trust. However, at the time of grant of registration director of Exemption is required to verify only the object of the trust and whether the activities of trust are genuineness. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dawoodi Boharh Jamat [2014] 364 ITR 31 (SC), held that the respondent-trust is a charitable and religious trust which does not benefit any specific religious community and therefore, it cannot be held that Section 13(1)(b) of the Act would be attracted to the respondent-trust and thereby, it would be eligible to claim exemption under Section 11 of the Act. Hence, registration required to be granted.

10. In view of the above, we direct the DIT(E) to grant registration within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order of Tribunal. We direct accordingly.

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 08/06/ 2016. Sd/- Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (R.C.SHARMA) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक Dated 08/06/2016 प्र.कु.मभ/pkm, नन.स/ PS आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीराथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A), Mumbai. 3. आमकय आमुक्त / CIT 4.