Case Law Details
CIT Vs Bhagwan Shree Laxmi Narain (Delhi High Court)
Conducting of samagams and spiritual discourses are part of religious activities and religious activity in the context of the Hindu religion need not be confined to the activities incidental to a place of worship only, like a temple. It is not in dispute that the activities of the trust have been held to be for imparting spiritual education to the persons of all the caste and religion by organising samagam, distribution of free medicines, etc. to needy and disabled people. Their Lordships have also quoted the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhagwan Shree Laxmi Naraindham Trust (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has defined the concept of ‘religion’ and also in another judgment as quoted in para 14, wherein the religious activities under the Hindu faith has been defined to be mainly a way of life. After referring to these judgments their Lordships have held that the religious institutions like assessee are also engaged in charitable activities which are very much part of religious activities and such activities alongwith organising spiritual lectures has been held to be religious and this they have examined in the context of objects of the assessee trust. By such reasoning, the order of the Tribunal was affirmed. We do not find that the rationale and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in the earlier year, in any manner gets diluted in this year by the reasoning given by the AO and in fact the issue is squarely covered by this binding precedence.
Otherwise also, we find it very difficult to fathom the reasoning of the AO that, simply because the asseessee’s activities have been held to be religious by the AO then same is ether not charitable or assessee has transgressed its activities from the objects. The so called religious activities here in this case is nothing but spiritual activities, because trust has been imparting 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 for pursuing spiritual path. The goal for every human has been for spiritual upliftment by whatever beliefs and practices one follows. Such spiritual upliftment has been believed to give strength to overcome many problems arising from materialistic worries and related diseases. In the context of our country, especially in Hindu Dharma, religion and spirituality cannot be segregated and it cannot be understood by resorting to dictionary meaning as done by the AO. In fact both the concepts are overlapping and often distinction between the two gets blurred, as Hindu dharma has various set of beliefs, rituals and practices, but aim has always being for general well being and spiritual upliftment of the individuals and public at large. Hindu religion cannot be confined to the activities incidental to a place of worship like temple only which is too myopic view as it is much broader and even without temple/Mandir, religion can be practised, professed, followed and believed. 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, such discourses falls in the broad concepts of Hindu religious activities which is well within the permissible objects of the assessee trust which is giving spiritual lectures to the needy persons. Thus, the reasoning and the findings of the AO that it is purely carrying out religious activities not enshrined in the object of the trust cannot be sustained.
Coming to the other disallowances made by the Ld. AO, we do not find any substance in the reasoning given by the AO, which in fact is sans any material or evidence but based on wild conjectures. For instances, in so far disallowance of 1/3rd expenditure on telecast of samagam on TV, he has held that, there might be some kind of benefit to Gurudevji, who is one of the persons specified u/s 13(3), as such telecast will give personal benefit to the personality of Gurudevji. Such reasoning is outlandish and farfetched, firstly, for the reason that any kind of befit needs to be quantified; and secondly, there has to be some material to indicate that some personal befit has gone. The Legislature has categorically given the specified nature of benefits for which section 13(2) can be invoked. No such benefits have been ascribed by the AO, albeit is based on hypothesis that TV telecast might give some benefit to the Gurudevji by enhancing his popularity as he has benefited by these TV programmes. In fact such kind of spiritual lecture telecast by various TV channels is meant for general public at large and not for the benefit of the person delivering the lectures. Hence such contention of the disallowance made by the AO is rejected.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
