Case Law Details
Shrouta Vijnan Gurukulam Vs ITO (Exemptions) (ITAT Bangalore)
ITAT Bangalore held that propagation of vedic thoughts and philosophy is not religious activity but are more concerned with the life style of the human beings and therefore is eligible for approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act.
Facts- The assessee is a Trust formed on 05.04.2013. The Trust was formed with the main object of teaching, imparting and spreading knowledge of vedic education. The assessee at the first instance was granted registration u/s. 12A r.w.s. 12AA of the Act and approval u/s. 80G of the Act vide Orders dated 24.02.2015. Thereafter, assessee applied for provisional registration u/s. 12A of the Act in Form 10A (applicated dated 11.09.2021). The CIT(E) granted registration u/s. 12A of the Act in Form 10AC (order dated 02.10.2021). Assessee had filed an application for approval u/s. 80G of the Act in Form No.10AB vide its application dated 26.09.2023. The said application was rejected by the CIT(E) by holding that the objects of the Trust and activities of the Trust are religious in nature and hence not entitled to approval under section 80G of the Act. The CIT(E) held that assessee has not fulfilled the condition stipulated in clause (iii) to section 80G(5) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- The Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sri Ashvalayana Vrunda Vs. ITO and Shrthiparampara Gurukulam Vs. ITO had categorically held that teaching of vedas is not a religious activity but a way of life and therefore is eligible for approval under section 80G of the Act.
Held that propagation of vedic thoughts and philosophy cannot be attributed to any religion as same are more concerned with the life style of the human beings. Therefore, we hold that the activities carried on by the assessee trust is charitable in nature and not religious, hence, would be entitled to the grant of approval under section 80G of the Act. It is ordered accordingly.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the CIT(E)’s Order dated 22.02.2024 rejecting the assessee’s application seeking approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’).
2. The grounds raised read as follows:
1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [`CIT(E)’] erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law by rejecting the Application for Approval under section 80G(vi) of the Income Tax Act (`the Act’) submitted by the Appellant.
2. That the learned CIT(E’) has erred on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law by concluding that the Appellant is carrying on religious activities and it is a religious trust.
3. That the learned CIT(E) has failed to consider that Explanation 3 to Section 80G of the Act has to be read with Section 80G(5B) of the Act.
4. That the Appellant craves leave to add to and/or to alter, amend, rescind, modify, the grounds herein above or produce further documents before or at the time of the hearing of this appeal.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The assessee is a Trust formed on 05.04.2013. Certain clauses of the Trust Deed were amended in order to conform to the requirement of Income Tax Act, 1961, vide amendment deed dated 19.02.2015. The Trust was formed with the main object of teaching, imparting and spreading knowledge of vedic education. The assessee at the first instance was granted registration under section 12A r.w.s. 12AA of the Act and approval under section 80G of the Act vide Orders dated 24.02.2015. Thereafter, assessee applied for provisional registration under section 12A of the Act in Form 10A (applicated dated 11.09.2021). The CIT(E) granted registration under section 12A of the Act in Form 10AC (order dated 02.10.2021). Assessee had filed an application for approval under section 80G of the Act in Form No.10AB vide its application dated 26.09.2023. The said application was rejected by the CIT(E) by holding that the objects of the Trust and activities of the Trust are religious in nature and hence not entitled to approval under section 80G of the Act. The CIT(E) held that assessee has not fulfilled the condition stipulated in clause (iii) to section 80G(5) of the Act. The relevant findings of the CIT(E) at page 4 of the CIT(E)’s order reads as follows:
“5. From the objects of the trust, activities and financials submitted by the assessee, it is observed that the trust is carrying on religious activities. Approval u/s.80G requires that the assessee should establish that it is for charitable purpose. Explanation 3 to section 80G of the Act is reproduced as under:
“In this section, “charitable purpose” does not include any purpose the whole or substantially the whole of which is of a religious nature”.
6. In the present case, it can be observed from the objects of the trust, activities of the trust and also financials submitted by the trust that the activities are religious in nature. Thus, assessee is a Religious trust.
7. In view of the above facts, the application filed in Form No.10AB dated 26.09.2023 for approval u/s.80G of the Income tax Act, 1961 is hereby rejected and approval cancelled.”
4. Aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(E), rejecting the assessee’s application for approval under section 80G of the Act. assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed a Paper Book enclosing therein the Trust Deed dated 05.04.0213, amendment to Trust Deed dated 19.02.2023, activity report of the assessee trust, audited financial statement for the Financial Years 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23, initial certificate granted registration under section 12A r.w.s. 12AA of the Act, approval under section 80G of the Act, dated 24.02.2015, fresh application for approval under section 80G of the Act in Form 10AB, application for provisional registration under section 12A of the Act, Order of the PCIT granting registration under section 12A of the Act, etc. The learned AR, by referring to the objects of the Trust, submitted that teaching of vedas is not a religious activity and therefore would be eligible for approval under section 80G of the Act. In this context, the learned AR relied on the Orders of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sri Ashvalayana Vrunda Vs. ITO in ITA Nos.1084, 1085/Bang/2022 (order dated 04.01.2023) and Shrthiparampara Gurukulam Vs. ITO reported in [2023] 150 taxmann.com 125 (Bangalore – Trib.).
5. Learned DR supported the orders of the CIT(E).
6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee trust has been formed to protect, preserve and promote Shrouta Vijnana bestowed by the Vedic Seers. The objects of the Trust as mentioned in the Trust Deed dated 05.04.2013 reads as follows:
“1. To start, establish or to do any or all of the following to preserve, promote and propagate the traditional style and purity of various Vedic rituals and recitations.
a. Veda Patashalas and Vedic Ritual Training Centers .
b. Vedic Research Centres.
c. Libraries on the Vedas & the Vedic Rituals
d. Publication of periodicals, books, etc. on non-commercial basis to propagate the achievements in research and other activities of the trust.
e. Museums, Documentation Centers, and Information Networks.
f. Workshops, Seminars, Demonstration – lectures, Competitions, etc.
g. Felicitation of the Vedic Scholars, Experts, Critics, etc.”
7. The above objects are achieved without any profit motive or without discrimination of any caste, creed, sex, sect or language [refer 2 of the Trust Deed at Page 3 of the Paper Book]. From the objects of the Trust, it is very clear that the Trust has been formed for teaching, propagating and spreading of knowledge of vedic education. The Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sri Ashvalayana Vrunda Vs. ITO and Shrthiparampara Gurukulam Vs. ITO (surpa), by following the judicial pronouncements, had categorically held that teaching of vedas is not a religious activity but a way of life and therefore is eligible for approval under section 80G of the Act. In other words, it has not violated the provisions of section 80G(5)(iii) and explanation 3 to section 80G of the Act. The relevant finding of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sri Ashvalayana Vrunda Vs. ITO (supra) reads as follows:
“6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The beneficiaries of the assessee-trust are members of general public irrespective of race, religion, caste, community, creed or gender (refer para 2.1 of the trust deed). The objects of the trust are at para 5 of the trust deed. They read as follows:-
The objects of the Trust shall include the following:
(a) To protect, preserve, teach, impart and spread the knowledge of VEDAS;
(b) To spread vedic education, vedic chanting and its knowledge. to encourage and teach the tradition of Vedic Chanting in India which has been declared and notified by the UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) in the Intangible Cultural Heritage List (Proclaimed in 2003 and Inscribed in 2008);
(c) To protect, preserve, teach, spread and encourage the knowledge of Indian heritage and culture contained in various Dharma Granthas, Dharma Shastras, Sutras, Shruti, Smruti, Puranas etc.;
(d) To teach, impart and encourage YOGA;
(e) To teach, impart and encourage the learning of Sanskrit;
(f) To support the Schools or Institutions having Indian Heritage Education;
(g) To encourage students of studies having Indian Heritage Value;
(h) To financially support the deserving students, teachers and scholars involved in learning of Indian Heritage Education;
(i) To financially support the deserving students, teachers and scholars, involved in learning of Indian Heritage Education, for their modern education;
(j) To help in building the infrastructure to teach modern education to those pursuing traditional Indian Heritage education;
(k) To provide financial scholarship to those pursuing specialization on Heritage studies;
(l) To work for the cause of Heritage education, to provide financial assistance for the medical expenses of students, teachers and scholars involved in Indian Heritage Education;
(m) To give financial aid to the deserving parents sending their offspring for Heritage studies;
(n) To encourage those doing research on the meaning of Vedas for the benefit of all;
(o) To create zeal amidst students to excel and pursue deeper and wider into Heritage Education;
(p) To support education to all without any barrier of caste, creed and religion as per Indian Law;
(q) To work for National Integration, to promote universal brotherhood and to spread harmony among all sections of people of India
(r) To establish and run GOSHALAS
(s) To create employment opportunities and to help the deserving candidates in getting employment in the Indian Heritage system.
7. The word `Veda’ means `knowledge’ and is derived from the Sanskrit word `vid’, which means `to know’. The word `Veda’ signifies highest sacred, eternal and divine knowledge as well as the texts embodying that knowledge. The significance of the Veda is manifold. It has been universally acknowledged that the Veda is the earliest available literature of humanity. The Veda contains the highest spiritual knowledge (Para vidya) as well as the knowledge of the world (Apara vidya). Thus, apart from philosophy, we find here descriptions of various aspects of the different subjects such as sciences, medicine, political science, psychology, agriculture, poetry, art, music etc. The Veda is unique in its purity and sanctity. The text of the Veda is preserved in its pure and original form without any alteration or interpolation even after thousands of years. The Veda is the unadulterated treasure house of true knowledge. So much so that even UNESCO declared it as part of the Intangible cultural heritage of humanity. Despite being oldest, the Vedas have been preserved in their true form up till now. Even Max Muller, a renowned European scholar, has admitted that, the text of the Vedas has been handed down to us with such accuracy and care that there is hardly any change in the words, or there is any uncertain aspect in the whole of Vedas. The credit for this goes to Vedic seers (Rishis) who devised means of protecting and preserving the text of Vedas letter by letter, with all their accessories. Vedic mantras have accents (Swara) which preserve its original form of word- construction.
8. After the formation of the Trust, the assessee conducted various workshop to disseminate the knowledge of Vedas. General public irrespective of caste, creed, gender or “religion were invited to witness the said events and to know the significance and importance of Vedas. The Vedic Scholars were identified and felicitated irrespective of their caste, creed or religion. The assessee-trust has given financial assistance to various people, irrespective of caste, creed or religion, involved in Indian Heritage Education. Trust conducts teaching of Vedas by various scholars to students, working people, retired persons etc. irrespective of caste, creed, religion. The trust has conducted the vedic classes by going to the houses of all interested people irrespective of caste, creed, gender or religion and has taught them the importance of Vedas. During Covid, the trust provided financial assistance to the poor Vedic scholars and distributed food kit, cloths, medicines for the needy. All the expenses to carry out the above charitable objectives are met out of donations received. No fees or honorarium or money is charged by the trust or by any Trustees for conducting the vedic classes, chanting or for any programmes. All trustees work selflessly for achieving the charitable objects of the Trust.
9. The approval by the PCIT under section 80G requires fulfilment of all the conditions laid down in clauses (i) to (v) of section 80G(5). The conditions are as under:-
(i) The income of the Trust is not liable to inclusion in its total income under section 11, 12, 10(23AA), 10(23C) as the case may be.
(ii) The instrument under which the institution or fund is constituted does not, or the rules governing the institution or fund do not, contain any provision for the transfer or application at any time of the whole or any part of the income or assets of the institution or fund for any purpose other than a charitable purpose;
(iii) the institution or fund is not expressed to be for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste;
(iv) the institution or fund maintains regular accounts of its receipts and expenditure;
(v) the institution or fund is either constituted as a public charitable trust or is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860), or under any law corresponding to that Act in force in any part of India or under section 253 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or is a University established by law, or is any other educational institution recognised by the Government or by a University established by law, or affiliated to any University established by law, or is an institution financed wholly or in part by the Government or a local authority;
10. Explanation 3 to section 80G states that “charitable purpose” does not include any purpose the whole or substantially the whole of which is of a religious nature. In the present case, the learned CIT(E) has held that the assessee is engaged in a religious activity of teaching Vedas, a Hindu religious scripture, to Hindu students and hence the whole purpose of the trust is of religious nature as per Explanation 3 to section 80G. It is therefore concluded that the assessee Trust is not eligible for approval under section 80G. In coming to the above conclusion, the learned CIT(E) has relied on certain judicial pronouncement, which we shall deal later.
11. It is settled principle that Hinduism is a way of life and not a religion. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in TT Kuppuswamy Chettiar and others v State of Tamil Nadu (1987) 100 LW 1031 held as under:-
“The word ‘Hindu’ itself has not been defined in any of the texts, nor in any of the judge made laws. The definition of a ‘Hindu’ is also not available in the ancient texts. Even the renowned author of the Hindu Law, viz., Mulla has not defined the word ‘Hindu’. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, ‘Hindu’ means adherent of Hinduism; whereas the Chambers Dictionary defines ‘Hindu’ as a member of any of the races of Hindustan or India, a believer in a form of Brahmanism. A perusal of the history shows that the name ‘Hindu’ was given by the British authorities while dispensing justice with reference to the inheritance, partition, marriage and other personal laws of the inhabitants of this nation who are not Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Jains. The British Administrators sought the help of the local English knowing Sanskrit pundits who quoted widely the Vedas and Smritis (collection of precepts handed over by Rishis or sages of antiquity in Sanskrit). …………. .
A study of the Sanskrit texts in English and the law administered in pursuance of thereof clearly shows that there is no religion by the name ‘Hindu’. The word ‘Hindu’ covers various sects such as ……… . If one comprehends the aforesaid facts it will be very difficult to find a Hindu religion having a common faith, and a common founder because Hindu religion takes within its fold not only the four classes of persons viz., Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and Sudras, but also other religions viz., Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists. I am unable to comprehend as to how one religion can have several religions within its fold. It only shows that the so called Hindu religion has been coined for convenience.”
12. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Dr Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v Shri Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte and Others 1996 AIR 1113 referring to various constitution bench decisions, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Dictionaries, Encyclopaedia Britannica and Treatise, had held as under.
“These Constitution Bench decisions, after a detailed discussion, indicate that no precise meaning can be ascribed to the terms `Hindu’, `Hindutva’ and `Hinduism’; and no meaning in the abstract can confine it to the narrow limits of religion alone, excluding the content of Indian culture and heritage. It is also indicated that the term `Hindutva’ is related more to the way of life of the people in the sub- continent. It is difficult to appreciate how in the face of these decisions the term `Hindutva’ or `Hinduism’ per se, in the abstract, can be assumed to mean and be equated with narrow fundamentalist Hindu religious bigotry, or be construed to fall within the prohibition in sub-sections (3) and/or (3A) of Section 123 of the R.P. Act.”
Ordinarily, Hindutva is understood as a way of life or a state of mind and it is not to be equated with, or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism.
“Thus, it cannot be doubted, particularly in view of the Constitution Bench decisions of this Court that the words `Hinduism’ or `Hindutva’ are not necessarily to be understood and construed narrowly, confined only to the strict Hindu religious practices unrelated to the culture and ethos of the people of India, depicting the way of life of the Indian people. Unless the context of a speech indicates a contrary meaning or use, in the abstract these terms are indicative more of a way of life of the Indian people and are not confined merely to describe persons practising the Hindu religion as a faith. Considering the terms `Hinduism’ or `Hindutva’ per se as depicting hostility, enmity or intolerance towards other religious faiths or professing communalism, proceeds form an improper appreciation and perception of the true meaning of these expressions emerging from the detailed discussion in earlier authorities of this Court.”
13. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT v Sri Radha Raman Niwas Trust [2014] 42 com 77 affirmed the findings of the Tribunal, which held that to carry sewa puja of Sri Giridhari Ji and carry Akhand Naam Sankirtan uninterruptedly in Aashram is one type of meditation and yoga and is a charitable activity under section 2(15) of the I.T.Act. The High Court held that unless it was proved that the above activities was for any particular community or group of persons, it cannot be a ground to reject the registration u/s 12A and approval u/s 80G of the I.T.Act.
14. The Tribunal in Shiv Mandir Devsttan Panch Committee Sanstan v CIT [2012] 27 com 100 (Nagpur Trib) referring to the above decisions held that worship of Lord Shiva, Hanumanji, Goddess Durga and maintaining of temple cannot be regarded as for the advancement support or propagation of a particular religion and granted the approval under section 80G of the I.T.Act. The relevant observations from the decision are as under:-
“The objects as has been pointed out by CIT, nowhere talks of advancement, support or propagation of a particular religion, worshipping of Lord Shiva, Hanumanji, Goddess Durga and maintaining of temple, in our opinion, cannot be regarded for the advancement support or propagation of a particular religion. No evidence or material was placed on record or brought before us by the learned DR which may prove that these object relate to a particular religion. No doubt the DR argued that it relate to Hindu Religion but in our opinion it is not so. Lord Shiva, Hanumanji, Goddess Durga does not represent any particular religion, they are merely regarded to be the super power of the universe.
11. In the case of Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar 1954 SCJ 335, Religion has been expressed to mean a matter of faith with individuals or communities and it is not necessarily theristic. There are well known religions in India, like Buddhism and Jainism, which do not believe in God or in any intelligent first cause. A religion undoubtedly has its basis in a system of beliefs or doctrines which are regarded by those who profess that religion as conducive to their spiritual well being, but it will not be correct to say that religions is nothing else but a doctrine or belief. A religion may not only lay down a code of ethical rules for its followers to accept, but it might prescribed rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are regarded as integral parts of a religion, and these forms and observances might extend even to matters of food and dress. No material or evidence has been brought on record by the department which may prove that any person coming, worshipping and maintaining the temple has to follow a particular code of ethical rules and has to carry out the prescribed rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship. The entry is not restricted to a particular group of persons. Any body whether want to worship or not and want to maintain or not can come to the temple and avail of all the facilities available to the public at large. Therefore, these objects cannot be regarded to be the religious objects. In our opinion, until and unless the activities for which the trust is established, involve the activity religious purpose, it cannot be said that the assessee has not complied with the condition No. (iii) enumerated u/s. 80G(5) of the Act.
12. Even we noted that all the building maintenance expenses, free food expenses and festival, prayer and daily expenses cannot be regarded to be the one incurred for religious object, even if the object is regarded to be religious one. It is not denied that in the building the assessee was carrying yoga centre, tailoring training centre as well as food for the needy and optical centre for the poor.
13. Explanation 3 to section 80G(v) states that “in this section, “charitable purpose” does not include any purpose the whole or substantially the whole of which is of a religious nature.” This explanation takes note of the fact that an institution or fund shall be for a charitable purpose and may have a number of objects. If any one of these objects is wholly or substantially wholly of a religious nature, the Institution or Funds falls outside the scope of section 80G and the donation to it will not make the donor entitled for the deduction u/s. 80G. The objects as per Explanation 3 must be wholly or substantially whole of which must be of religious nature. The assessee has submitted all the evidence including the objects and how the expenditure has been incurred by it. The onus, in our opinion, gets shifted on the Revenue to prove that the assessee-trust is wholly or substantially for the religious purpose. There is no allegation on the part of the revenue that the whole or substantially whole of the object of the trust is to propagate or advance support to a particular sect. We may observe that Hinduism is a way of life of a civilized society. It as such is not a religion. In this regard we rely on the case of T.T. Kuppuswamy Chettiar v. State of Tamil Nadu [1987] 100 LW 1031 in which it was held “The word “Hindu” has not been defined in any of the texts nor in judgment made law. The word was given by British administrators to inhabitants of India, who were not Christians, Muslims, Parsis or Jews. The alleged Hindu religion consists of four castes Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Sudras belonging ultimately to two schools of law, mitaksharas and dayabhaga. There is, however, no religion by the name ‘Hindu’. It only shows that so called Hindu religion has been called for convenience.” CIT must be aware of that the Hindu consists of a number of communities having the different gods who are being worshipped in a different manner, different rituals, different ethical codes. Even the worship of god is not essential for a person who has adopted Hinduism way of life. Thus, Hinduism holds within its fold men of divergent views and traditions who have very little in common except a vague faith in what may be called the fundamentals of the Hinduism. The word ‘community’ means a society of people living in the same place, under the same laws and regulations and who have common rights and privileges. This may apply to Christianity or moslem but not to Hinduism. Therefore, it cannot be said that Hindu is a separate community or a separate religion. Technically Hindu is neither a religion nor a community. Therefore, expenses incurred for worshipping of Lord Shiva, Hanuman, Goddess Durga and for maintenance of temple cannot be regarded to be for religious purpose. Under these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the CIT is not correct in law in not allowing the approval to the assessee trust u/s. 80G of the Act. We accordingly, set aside the order of the CIT and direct the CIT to grant approval to the assessee-trust u/s. 80G(5)(vi) of the Act.”
15. The ITAT Bangalore bench in M/s Sri Channamallikarjuna Trust Committee Gangavathi v CIT (E) – ITA No 1829/Bang/2018 (order dated 4.5.2022) explained the difference between charitable purpose and religious purpose and held as under:-
“13. In sections 11, 12 & 13, a distinction has been drawn between ‘charitable purpose’ and ‘religious purposes’, but there is no definition of the term ‘religious purpose’ in the Act. Generally interpreted, it would encompass within its fold all institutions or funds, which are for the advancement, support or propagation of a religion and its tenets. How religion is to be understood in the context of the Act, has been examined in the case of Dawoodi Bhora Jamat (supra). If the benefit of religious endowments too ensures for the benefit of the public, then the religious trusts/endowments too will be entitled to the exemption provided by section 11 of the Act. A religious trust could be ‘public’ or ‘private’. Section 13(1)(a) bars exemption to any private religious trust, which does not enure for the benefit of the public. Section 80G(5)(iii) makes a distinction in cases of institutions or funds, which are for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste – say for Hindus, Muslims, Christians or for Brahmins, etc. Donors to such trusts are debarred from claiming benefit of deduction from income for donations made to such trusts. Conversely, it follows that for donations made to religious bodies, which do not fall in the category mentioned in section 80G(5)(iii), benefit of deduction under section 80G can be claimed. Thus, it could be said that a public religious trust, not meant for the benefit of a particular community, caste or section, will be entitled to claim exemption on its income in the same way as a public charitable trust.
15. We are of the view that the objects and purposes of the Assessee are both charitable and religious, the Assessee does not exist exclusively for the benefit of a particular religious community. The objects do not channel the benefits to any community and thus, would not fall as an institution existing solely for religious purpose. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the Assessee is a charitable and religious trust which does not benefit any specific religious community and therefore, it cannot be held that it exists solely for religious purpose. It cannot be characterised as religious object especially when it does not make a distinction between caste, creed, race, religion, etc.
16. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are satisfied that the plea of the Assessee to recognize it as existing for “Charitable Purpose” deserves to be accepted and is accepted. We accordingly allow the plea of the Assessee and direct that the registration be allowed treating the Assessee as existing for “Charitable purpose”.
16. In Vaidik Bhakti Sadan Asram v CIT [2010] 5 ITR (Trib) 590 (Delhi), the Tribunal held that propagation of vedic thoughts and philosophy cannot be attributed to any religion as the same are more concerned with the lifestyle of the human beings. The relevant observations are as under:-
“9. A perusal of the impugned order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax shows that the renewal of registration under section 80G was denied by him to the assessee-trust mainly on three grounds which have already been enumerated by us while narrating the facts of the case in the foregoing portion of this order. At the time, of hearing before us, learned counsel for the assessee has made elaborate submissions to meet all these objections raised by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax while denying exemption to the assessee under section 80G. As rightly pointed out by him, the objects and activities of the assesseetrust relating to propagation of vedic thoughts and philosophy cannot be attributed to any religion as the same are more concerned with the lifestyle of the human beings across the different religions and countries. It gets corroborated from the fact that yoga and self-meditation are being exercised and followed throughout the world by sections of people from different religions and different countries. These activities are thus not confined or attributed to any particular religion and the same, therefore, cannot be regarded as wholly or substantially of a religious nature. Moreover, as per the trustdeed, neither the trust nor its funds were expressed to be for the benefit of any particular religious community and as further pointed out by learned counsel for the assessee and remained uncontroverted by the learned Departmental representative, not even a single rupee was spent by the assessee-trust on religious activity.”
17. In view of the above judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble High Court and various Tribunal (including the Bangalore bench), there is no merit in the impugned finding of the CIT(E) that teaching Vedas is a religious activity and therefore not eligible for approval under section 80G of the I.T.Act.
18. As regards the case law relied on by the CIT(E), we find that in the case of Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd v CIT (supra), one of the objects of the Trust deed was ‘to establish, maintain and to grant and / or aid to public places of worship and prayer halls’. The Hon’ble Apex Court considering the said object, held as under:-“10. To reiterate, ‘Explanation 3 does not require the ascertainment of whether the whole or substantially the whole of the institution or fund’s charitable purpose is of a religious nature. If it did, it would read differently. It requires the ascertainment of whether there is one purpose within the institution or fund’s overall charitable purpose which is wholly, or substantially wholly, of a religious nature. There is little doubt that clause 2(h)of the trust deed which permits the trustees to support prayer halls and places of worship sets out a purpose the whole or substantially the whole of which is of a religious nature, and this has not been seriously disputed. Therefore, in our view, the Trust and the donation by the assessee to it fall outside the scope of section 80G.”
19. In the present case, objects of the assessee-Trust are reproduced at para 6 (supra) and they are available at page 31 to 33 of the paper book filed by the assessee. The assessee Trust does not have any object ‘to establish, maintain and to grant and / or aid to public places of worship and prayer halls’ and hence the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT (supra) is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. The impugned conclusion of the learned CIT(E) that teaching of Vedas involve offering worship and prayer to God is not correct and bereft of any reason. The assessee only teaches the students how to recite the Vedas. There is a particular method of pronunciation of Vedas with Swaras attached to it. The recitation and pronunciation of Vedas is what is taught by the assessee-Trust. It is like teaching any other Sanskrit literature. The teaching of Vedas does not involve offering worship and prayer to God as held by the CIT(E). There is no object or activity of worship or prayer to God as contended by the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is also not an authority to conclude what teaching of Vedas involve. Hence, the decision of the Supreme Court in Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd v CIT (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
20. The ITAT Jaipur in Shiv Ratan Rathi Foundation v CIT [2012] 20 com 221 (JP) followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Upper Ganges and held that organising ‘Bhagavat Katha’ is a religious activity and therefore Trust would not be granted the approval under section 80G. In the present case as explained above, the Supreme Court decision in Upper Ganges is not applicable and also the assessee-Trust does not have any object of organising ‘Bhagavat Katha’. It is only teaching how to pronounce and recite the Vedas, a Sanskrit literature. Thus, the above decision is not applicable to the present case.
21. The Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in Umaid Charitable Trust v UOI (supra) distinguished the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Upper Ganges and held as under:-
“33. The learned counsel for the revenue relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Upper Ganges Sugar Mills (supra), which has been relied upon by the learned CIT(A) also in the impugned order, it was held on the basis of one particular clause (2)(h) of the trust-deed which read “to establish, maintain and to grant and/or aid to public places of worship and prayer halls”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with Explanation4 of section 80G(5) held as under :
“To reiterate, Explanation 3 does not require the ascertainment of whether the whole or substantially the whole of the institution or fund’s charitable purpose is of religious nature. If it did, it would read differently. It requires the ascertainment of whether there is one purpose within the institution or fund’s overall charitable purpose which is wholly, or substantially wholly, of a religious nature. There is little doubt that clause 2(h) of the trust deed which permits the trustees to support prayer halls and places of worship sets out a purpose the whole or substantially the whole of which is of religious nature, and this has not been seriously disputed. Therefore, in our view, the trust and the donation by the assessee to it fall outside the scope of section 80G.” (p. 582)
The aforesaid case is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case as there is no clause in the trust deed in the present case which indicates that income of the petitionertrust was to be applied wholly or substantially for any particular religion. Therefore, the said case has been clearly wrongly applied by the learned CIT(A) in the present case. In Sri Marudhar Kesari Sthanakwasi Jain Yadgar Samiti Trust’s case (supra) also relied upon by the learned Counsel for the revenue, the facts of the case were distinguishable in the said case. Thus, the judgments cited and relied upon by the learned Counsel for the revenue are distinguishable on facts and do not support the case of the respondents. Since the law in the case of Upper Ganges Sugar Mills (supra) was laid down while dealing the case of deduction under section 80G of the Act in the hands of donor so also in the case of Sri Marudhar Kesari Sthanakwasi Jain Yadgar Samiti Trust (supra) by this Court, those judgments do not advance cause of the revenue. On the other hand, the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner fully support the case of the petitioner when the Courts have consistently held that it is the dominant object of the trust which is important and contribution and expenditure incurred by the petitioner-trust has to be viewed in light of the objects with which charitable trust in question was constituted.”
22. In the above judgment, it was held by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court that approval under section 80G cannot be refused if one particular expenditure was made for repair and renovation of Lord Vishnu’s temple and that too by way of contribution to another trust. Relevant observations are as under:-
“The line of distinction between religious purposes and charitable purposes is very thin and no watertight compartment between the two activities can be established. Unless the objective of the charitable trust in question itself is to spend its income for a particular religion and it is so found in the trust deed, the Income-tax Department cannot reject the renewal of the trust as charitable trust under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, merely because one particular expenditure is for an activity which may be termed as spending for a particular religion.”
“A single contribution by the charitable trust to another trust which carried out repair and renovation of Lord Vishnu’s temple did not disentitle the petitioner-trust from renewal of its exemption certificate under section 80G. The repair and renovation of the temple did not necessarily mean that the expenditure in question was for a particular religion only. All people who have faith in Lord Vishnu’s temple belong to different sects and have faith in different religions and also visit such temple of Lord Vishnu. The Revenue had not shown that entry to the temple was restricted to persons of one particular community or sect practising one religion. Hinduism is not one particular religion and different sects following Hindu philosophy do visit temples of the Lord Vishnu, be they Jains, Sikhs, Brahmins, etc. There is no watertight compartment between different castes or sects following one particular religion. Right to freedom of religion is guaranteed in the Constitution under article 25. Therefore, the Revenue could not take such a pedantic and narrow approach that the character of the charitable trust was lost if one particular expenditure was made for repair and renovation of Lord Vishnu’s temple and that too by way of contribution to another trust. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner was set aside and the petitioner-trust shall be deemed to be registered under section 80G throughout the period after April 1, 2004, with all consequential benefits.”
23. The CIT(E) has relied on Kasyapa Veda Research Foundation v CIT [2011] 12 taxmann.com 286 (Cochin) to hold that Vedas are religious scriptures and Vedic Study is a study of Hindu religion or religious instruction. The said decision is distinguishable in view of various decisions as discussed hereinabove which holds that Hinduism itself is not a religion or community. The constitution bench decisions of the Supreme Court were not brought on record in the above decision and hence it is distinguishable. Without prejudice, the Tribunal in the above decision noted that universal appeal of Vedas and allowed registration in the status of charitable and religious Trust by holding as under:-
“Vedas: Universal appeal
4.6 Vedanta is the philosophy which analysed and taught man to be moral consciously. It is the essence of all religions. The Hindu scriptures teach that man is attracted to this earth to learn, more completely in each successive life, the infinite ways in which the Spirit may be expressed through, and be dominant over, material conditions. Slowly but surely, man, throughout the world, including India, across different religions, nationalities and ideologies, with the entering of the atomic age and the expansion of the world mind, is learning these truths.
Wisdom garnered by India, the eldest brother among the nations, is a heritage of all mankind. Vedic truth, as all truth, belongs to the Lord and not to India. The Rishis, whose minds were pure receptacles to receive the divine profundities of the Vedas, were members of the human race, born on this earth to serve humanity as a whole. Distinction by race or nation is meaningless in the realm of truth, where the only qualification is spiritual fitness to receive. The time tested scriptures of the world are one in essence.”
“Some overlap between the ‘religious’ and the ‘charitable’ is inherent in the very definitions of the two concepts, and has to be admitted and respected. Continuing further, we also observe that the activities of the trust are not confined to these activities alone, but is also undertaking purely charitable activities. As apparent from the Object Clause 2(c), (d), (f ), (i), (j) and (k ) of its Trust Deed, as well as the activities undertaken in pursuance of the same, as listed in the ‘Note on its activities’ (refer PB pgs. 8,9 and 10). In our considered view, therefore, the appellant-trust qualifies to be a charitable trust as well. Accordingly, it is to be allowed the status of a religious and charitable trust.”
24. Moreover, the assessee-trust has carried on other charitable activities in the nature of relief of poor. The Vedic Scholars were identified and felicitated irrespective of their caste, creed or religion. The Trust has given financial assistance to various people, irrespective of caste, creed or religion, involved in Indian Heritage Education. During Covid, many were in financial difficulty and the Trust provided financial assistance and distributed food kit, clothes, medicines for the needy Vedic scholars irrespective of their caste, religion or gender. All the expenses were met out of voluntary contributions or donations. The Income and expenditure account for AY 2021-22 are placed on record at page 86, 87 of paper book], and for AY 2022-23, ledger account for expenses incurred in achieving the objects like donation to veda pathashalas, veda pundits, medical assistance etc [Page 94 to 99 of paper book] and invoices, vouchers, brochures and photos [page 127 to 157 of paper book] demonstrates the charitable activities carried on by the assessee Trust. Thus the activities carried on by the assesseeTrust are CHARITABLE in the nature of education, relief of poor and not RELIGIOUS as concluded by the CIT(E). In view of the above, the impugned findings of the CIT(E) that the assessee-trust is registered as RELIGIOUS is quashed and the assessee is allowed registration u/s 12A of the I.T.Act as charitable trust. Consequently, the approval u/s 80G of the I.T.Act is to be granted. It is ordered accordingly.
25. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee-trust are allowed.”
8. A similar view has also been held in the case of Shrthiparampara Gurukulam Vs. ITO (supra). In view of the aforesaid Orders of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal which has considered judicial precedence on the subject, we hold that propagation of vedic thoughts and philosophy cannot be attributed to any religion as same are more concerned with the life style of the human beings. Therefore, we hold that the activities carried on by the assessee trust is charitable in nature and not religious, hence, would be entitled to the grant of approval under section 80G of the Act. It is ordered accordingly.
9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.
Author Bio
