9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "]. The main objects of the appellant/company as per its Memorandum of Association are as follows: "1. To establish a world class research centre in the field of organic farming and to promote, encourage, establish, develop, maintain, organize, undertake, manage, operate, research in all kinds of biotechnological, organic, agricultural, horticultural, dairy, poultry and farm produces and products and to encourage research and development for promoting nutritious food-grains, cereals, seeds, soya-beans, corn, corn oils, cash crops, plants, flowers, vegetables, spices, coffee, edible oils, meat fish, eggs, and other human food products to ensure quality food products are made available to the society. 2. To initiate, carry out, execute, implement, aid and assist activities towards development in the organic farming sector in India and meeting the entire value chain's requirements of approximately trained manpower in quantity and quality on a sustained and evolving basis and to prevent use of harmful chemicals and pesticides in agricultural activities in land through establishing, promoting academics of excellence and to coordinate participation of social partners, employers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals before the Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal also dismissed the appeals by sustaining the order of the First Appellate Authority. 6. Before us, the appellant raises the following substantial questions of law: a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case has not the learned tribunal gone wrong in finding that the object of the appellant is not "relief of the poor" ? b) Ought not the learned Tribunal to have allowed the claim of exemption under Section 11 of the Act ? 7. We have heard Sri. K. Sreekumar, the learned senior counsel, assisted by Smt. Ammu Charles, the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Sri. Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for the Department. 8. The contentions of Sri. Sreekumar, the learned senior counsel for the appellant, briefly stated, are as follows: ● Referring to Circular No.11/2008 dated 19.12.2008, the appellant would contend that the finding that the activities carried on by the appellant do not attract the description of "Relief of the poor" for the purposes of Section 2 (15) of the I.T. Act is wholly incorrect. It is argued that relief provided to small and marginal farmers would also qualif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eliance is also placed on the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax - I, Lucknow v. Lucknow Development Authority, Gomti Nagar - [(2013) 38 Taxmann.com 246 (Allahabad)] to point out that in the absence of any material that was brought on record by the Department to suggest that the assessee was conducting its affairs on commercial lines with the motive of earning profit or that it had deviated from its objects as detailed in the Memorandum of Association, the proviso to Section 2 (15) of the I.T. Act could not be held applicable to the appellant/assessee and it had to be seen as entitled to the exemption provided under Section 11 of the I.T. Act. ● It is the specific case of the appellant that it had produced documents in the form of details of approximately 13,320 farmers, including therein the extent of their landholdings, to show their categorization as 'small and marginal farmers' based on the criteria prescribed by the Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, to establish that its activities were intended to provide relief of the poor. The Tribunal, on the other hand, chose not to consider the said documentary proof produced by the appellant before it and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 11/2008 dated 19.12.2008 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the contention of the Revenue is essentially that the activities of the appellant/company are more in the nature of business activities and that the carrying on of charitable objects is only incidental to such business activities; that the appellant is therefore engaged only in the advancement of other objects of general public utility. 11. Section 2 (15) of the I.T. Act defines "charitable purpose" for the purposes inter alia of Section 11 of the I.T. Act, as follows: "2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (15) "charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education, yoga, medical relief, preservation of environment (including water-sheds, forests and wildlife) and preservation of monuments or places or objects of artistic or historic interest, and the advancement of any other object of general public utility: Provided that the advancement of any other object of general public utility shall not be a charitable purpose, if it involves the carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business, or any activity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wers, vegetables, spices, coffee, edible oils, meat fish, eggs, and other human food products to ensure quality food products are made available to the society. The activity of "buying, selling, reselling, importing, exporting, transporting, storing, developing, promoting, marketing or supplying, trading", dealing in any manner whatsoever in all type of agro-products and related goods on retail as well as on wholesale basis in India or elsewhere is only incidental to the first two main objects specified in the Memorandum of Association. The tests laid down in Thiagarajar Charities (supra) and Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Thanthi Trust - [(2001) 247 ITR 785] that hold that if a business is carried on solely for the purposes of attainment of a charitable object, it cannot be seen as a pursuit of the object itself, applies squarely in the case of the appellant/assessee and persuades us to hold that the activities of the assessee are intended to fulfill a charitable purpose of relief of the poor. We cannot find it in ourselves to accept the reasoning of the authorities below that the main object of the appellant/assessee was to carry out business and that the charitable purp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
