Sri Chathurvedha Vidhya Ganapathi Trust Vs CIT (Exemption) (Madras High Court)
Summary: The Madras High Court considered a writ petition filed by Sri Chathurvedha Vidhya Ganapathi Trust challenging the rejection of its application for approval under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) had rejected the application through Form 10AD dated 30 March 2026, questioning whether the trust’s activities involving the imparting of Vedic education through a Vedapatasala qualified as education within the meaning of Section 2(15). The trust contended that, although it had submitted the documents requested through the department’s communication dated 11 January 2026 along with its reply dated 20 January 2026, it was not provided another opportunity to explain its educational activities before the rejection order was passed. It relied on the Chennai ITAT decision in Pasikulam Development Trust v. CIT (Exemptions), dated 6 July 2026, concerning instruction in Agama and Vedic texts, and the Madras High Court decision in Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust v. Union of India, dated 19 December 2025. The Revenue defended the rejection by invoking Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1975) 101 ITR 234 (SC), regarding the restricted meaning of education under Section 2(15), and maintained that the trust was engaged in propagating Vedic texts.
The High Court held that, after receiving the documents, the Commissioner should have afforded the petitioner an opportunity to explain the nature of the education provided before concluding that its activities did not fall within Section 2(15). The Court further observed that one condition for approval under Section 80G(5) is that an institution or fund must not be expressed to benefit a particular religious community or caste. Accordingly, the Commissioner should have examined whether the trust excluded persons of other faiths or provided education exclusively to members of a particular caste. The relevant ITAT and High Court decisions concerning the meaning of education should also have been considered. Finding a flaw in the decision-making process warranting judicial review, the High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The Commissioner was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the trust and issue a fresh order within four months from receipt of the High Court’s order. The Court did not itself grant Section 80G approval or finally decide whether the trust satisfied all statutory conditions.
Cases Discussed
- Pasikulam Development Trust v. The CIT (Exemptions) (ITAT) – Order dated 06.07.2026. Relied upon by Petitioner and noted by the High Court. The petitioner submitted that the Tribunal had considered whether instruction in Agama/Vedic texts constituted education and held that such education falls within Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act.
- Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust v. The Union of India (Madras High Court) – W.P.(MD) No. 29610 of 2025; Order dated 19.12.2025. Relied upon by Petitioner and considered relevant. The petitioner cited the Madurai Bench decision in support of reconsideration. The High Court observed that relevant judicial decisions regarding the meaning of education should have been taken into account.
- Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Supreme Court) – (1975) 101 ITR 234 (SC). Relied upon by Revenue. The Commissioner invoked the Supreme Court’s interpretation restricting the meaning of education under Section 2(15). The High Court did not finally determine the applicability of the precedent to the petitioner’s activities but required proper examination after an opportunity of hearing.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The petitioner had applied for approval under clause (ii) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (I-T Act). Said application was rejected under impugned order dated 30.03.2026.
2. Adverting to communication dated 11.01.2026, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was called upon to submit the documents specified therein. After the submission thereof along with reply dated 20.01.2026, she submits that no further opportunity was provided to the petitioner before issuing the impugned order. Relying on the order dated 06.07.2026 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Pasikulam Development Trust v. The CIT (Exemptions), she points out that the specific question with regard to the imparting of instruction in Agama/Vedic texts was considered by the ITAT and it was held that such education falls within the scope of Section 2(15) of the I-T Act. She also relies on the order of the Madurai Bench of this Court in Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust v. The Union of India, dated 19.12.2025 in W.P.(MD)No.29610 of 2025. For both these reasons, learned counsel submits that re-consideration is warranted.
3. Countering these contentions, Mr.V.J.Arulraj refers to paragraphs 4.1.1 to 5.1.1 of the impugned order. He points out that the respondent relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1975) 101 ITR 234 (SC) in relation to the restricted meaning to be attributed to the expression “education” in Section 2(15). He also submits that an express finding was entered that the petitioner runs a Vedapatasala, which is an institution for the propagation of vedic texts. Hence, he submits that no interference is warranted with the impugned order.
4. On perusal of documents enclosed in the paper book, it is noticeable that the petitioner was called upon to submit documents under communication dated 11.01.2026. The documents called for by the respondent were submitted on 20.01.2026 along with the reply. Upon perusal of such documents, if the respondent was of the view that the activities of the petitioner do not fall within education, as defined in Section 2(15) of the I-T Act, an opportunity should have been provided to the petitioner to explain the nature of education provided.
5. In particular, it is pertinent to record that one of the conditions required to be fulfilled for grant of approval under Section 80G(5) is that the institution or fund is not expressed to be for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste. Considering this condition, the respondent should have examined whether the petitioner was excluding members of other faiths or providing education only to members of a particular caste. In addition, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, the decisions of the ITAT and of this Court in relation to the meaning of the expression ‘education’ should have been taken note of. Hence, there is a flaw in the decision-making process warranting interference in judicial review. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a fresh order shall be issued within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
