2009 (8) TMI 756 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80G(5)- Charitable purpose - Renewal of exemption - the CIT has wrongly interpreted the amended definition of proviso to s. 2(15). The object as is analyzed from the amended proviso is to create a barrier for those assessees who are engaged in business activities in the garb of charitable purpose. But it is not meant that the assessees really engaged in charitable purpose should be compelled to meet with a barrier for the said proviso. The amended proviso is constraint for those assessees making an attempt to defraud the law in the garb of charitable purpose but it is certainly not meant for those assessees who are really engaged in the activities of charitable purpose. The term as per the proviso of advancement of any other object of general public utility is having a wider connotations to bring within its meaning the intent and purpose of the activities carried out by the appellant-assessee trust. - Besides this wrong legal interpretation the CIT has not been able to establish a single instance of having any profit motive or of having any trade activity by the assessee trust. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee trust has been granted registration under s. 80G(5) registration under s. 12A has been approved under s. 10(23C)(iv) as has been analyzed in detail above in this order. Therefore we fail to understand as to how the CIT taking undue advantage of the amended definition of s. 2(15) w.e.f. 1st April 2009 has rejected the renewal application filed by the assessee trust under s. 80G(5). - Application for renewal accepted - decided in favor of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Reasonable and sufficient opportunity for the assessee.
2. Definition of charitable purpose under the amended IT Act.
3. Examination of assessee's activities in relation to business.
4. Historical charitable purpose of the assessee trust.
5. Additional grounds for appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Reasonable and Sufficient Opportunity:
The appellant argued that the CIT-II, Nagpur, erred by not providing a reasonable and sufficient opportunity before rejecting the renewal application under section 80G(5) of the IT Act. The tribunal noted that the CIT's order lacked proper consideration of the appellant's submissions and evidence.

2. Definition of Charitable Purpose:
The CIT held that the assessee's activities did not fall within the definition of "charitable purpose" as amended from 1st April 2009. The tribunal reviewed the historical context and activities of the trust, which were established by Mahatma Gandhi in 1936. The trust's objectives included promoting Gandhian philosophy and various charitable activities. The tribunal found that the CIT misinterpreted the amended definition of section 2(15), which aims to prevent business activities under the guise of charitable purposes, not to penalize genuine charitable activities.

3. Examination of Assessee's Activities:
The CIT concluded that activities like the sale of coupons, conferences, and seminars amounted to business, thus disqualifying the trust from exemption under section 80G(5). The tribunal examined the trust's income and expenses from various activities, including agriculture, Goshala, Sahitya Bhandar, and Yatri Nivas, noting deficits in several accounts. The tribunal emphasized that these activities were not conducted with a profit motive but were integral to the trust's charitable objectives. The tribunal cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Addl. CIT vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association, which stated that an activity resulting in profit does not necessarily indicate a profit motive if the primary objective is charitable.

4. Historical Charitable Purpose:
The tribunal highlighted the trust's long-standing history of charitable activities, which had been recognized and approved under sections 12A, 80G, and 10(23C)(iv) of the IT Act. The CIT's rejection of the renewal application based solely on the amended definition of section 2(15) was deemed unwarranted and illegal. The tribunal stressed that the trust's activities had consistently aligned with its charitable purpose since its inception in 1936.

5. Additional Grounds for Appeal:
The assessee reserved the right to present additional grounds during the hearing, but the tribunal's decision focused on the primary grounds of appeal.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the CIT's order rejecting the renewal application under section 80G(5) was incorrect. The trust's activities were genuinely charitable and did not involve a profit motive. The tribunal canceled the CIT's order and allowed the assessee's appeal, reaffirming the trust's eligibility for exemption under section 80G(5).

← Previous Next →