2019 (3) TMI 1674 - AT - Income Tax

Exemption u/s 11 - charitable u/s 2(15) - Hindu religious activities - anonymous donations - HELD THAT - We find it very difficult to fathom that simply because assesssee s 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 Hon ble 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. 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 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. On the issue of addition on anonymous donations that assessee 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 assessee must have spent ₹ 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 CIT(A) to allow exemption/benefit u/s 11(1). - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Providing indirect benefits to a specified person under Section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Violation of Section 13(1) leading to loss of exemption.
4. Applicability of Section 115BBC.
5. Estimation of unexplained expenditure on samagams.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act:

The Revenue challenged the exemption granted to the assessee trust under Sections 11 and 12, asserting that the trust engaged in activities outside its objects. The Assessing Officer (AO) argued that the trust's activities were primarily religious, not charitable, as the trust had set up a temple and conducted religious discourses. However, the Tribunal noted that the trust was registered under Section 12A, and its registration had not been revoked. The Tribunal emphasized that the objects of the trust, which included spiritual and charitable activities, had not changed. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments, including the Delhi High Court's ruling in the assessee's own case, which affirmed that the trust's activities fell within the broad conspectus of Hindu religious activities and were eligible for exemption under Sections 11 and 12.

2. Providing indirect benefits to a specified person under Section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act:

The AO contended that the assessee trust provided indirect benefits to Gurudevji, a person specified under Section 13(3), by incurring expenses on telecasting his discourses. The AO disallowed one-third of the telecast expenses, assuming that these expenses benefited Gurudevji personally. However, the Tribunal rejected this contention, stating that the telecasts were intended for the general public and not for the personal benefit of Gurudevji. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO failed to specify any direct or indirect benefits as outlined in Section 13(2) and that the disallowance was based on conjecture.

3. Violation of Section 13(1) leading to loss of exemption:

The AO argued that even a single instance of violation of Section 13(1) would result in the trust losing its exemption for the entire income. However, the Tribunal found that the AO's conclusions were based on an incorrect understanding of the trust's activities. The Tribunal reiterated that the trust's activities, including spiritual lectures and charitable work, were within the scope of its objects and did not constitute a violation of Section 13(1).

4. Applicability of Section 115BBC:

The AO applied Section 115BBC to tax anonymous donations received by the trust, asserting that the trust's activities were spiritual rather than religious. The Tribunal referred to previous rulings, including the Delhi High Court's judgment, which held that the trust's activities, such as organizing samagams and providing spiritual education, fell within the scope of religious activities. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's distinction between spiritual and religious activities was incorrect and that the trust was entitled to the exemption under Section 115BBC.

5. Estimation of unexplained expenditure on samagams:

The AO estimated an unexplained expenditure of ?50 lakhs on samagams, arguing that the trust could not provide details of the expenses incurred. The Tribunal found that the AO's estimation was baseless and lacked supporting evidence. The Tribunal noted that the AO had accepted the trust's recorded expenditure of ?9,23,944 on samagams and that there was no material on record to justify the additional estimation. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reject the AO's estimation.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to grant the assessee trust exemption under Sections 11 and 12, reject the disallowance of telecast expenses, and reject the estimation of unexplained expenditure on samagams. The Tribunal emphasized that the trust's activities were within the scope of its objects and that the AO's conclusions were based on incorrect interpretations and conjecture. The Tribunal's decision was consistent with previous rulings, including those of the Delhi High Court, which had upheld the trust's entitlement to exemptions and benefits under the Income Tax Act.