Charitable dairy society held engaged in relief of poor, entitled to exemption under Sections 11, 12 and 2(15)

ITAT Cochin held that the assessee, a charitable society registered u/s 12A, is engaged in "relief of the poor" within the meaning of the first limb of Section 2(15). Its primary objects are welfare and economic upliftment of small and marginal farmers, with milk procurement, processing, and sale being incidental and inseparable activities to secure fair prices for them. Relying on CBDT Circular No. 11/2008 and compliance with Section 11(4A), the ITAT found the AO's characterization of the activities as purely commercial unsustainable. The denial of exemption u/s 11 and 12 was set aside and the addition deleted.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the activities of the assessee-society engaged in procurement, chilling, processing and sale of milk sourced from small and marginal farmers fall within the first limb of section 2(15) as "relief of the poor" or constitute a commercial activity disentitling it from exemption.

1.2 Whether, in the facts of the case, the proviso to section 2(15) and the restrictions applicable to "advancement of any other object of general public utility" are attracted to the assessee's activities.

1.3 Whether the conditions of section 11(4A) regarding business incidental to charitable objects and maintenance of separate books are satisfied, entitling the assessee to exemption under sections 11 and 12.

1.4 Whether the coordinate bench order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year, holding the dominant purpose to be "relief of the poor", is binding in the absence of change in facts or law.

1.5 Whether the addition representing surplus from milk trading/processing is sustainable once the assessee is held eligible for exemption under sections 11 and 12.

1.6 Whether the decision in the lead appeal is applicable mutatis mutandis to the other appeal involving identical facts for a different assessment year.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 & 2 - Characterisation of activities under section 2(15) and applicability of proviso

Legal framework (as discussed): Section 2(15) defining "charitable purpose"; its first limb "relief of the poor" vis-à-vis the residual limb "advancement of any other object of general public utility"; CBDT Circular No. 11/2008 dated 19.12.2008 clarifying that the proviso to section 2(15) does not apply to "relief of the poor", "education" and "medical relief" and that "relief of the poor" includes activities for welfare of small and marginal farmers; Supreme Court decision in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority holding that "per se" charitable categories (including relief of the poor) are not subjected to the commercial-activity restriction applicable to GPU; Kerala High Court decision in Biowin Agro Research holding that procurement and sale of produce from small and marginal farmers directed to their upliftment constitutes "relief of the poor".

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a registered charitable society and is also registered under section 12A. Its stated objects are relief, upliftment, economic support, and welfare of small and marginal farmers, and these objects are not disputed. The record showed activities such as farmer-training programmes, cattle-rearing demonstrations, subsidies, and various welfare schemes aimed at improving livelihood of economically weaker farming communities. The core controversy was whether large-scale milk procurement, processing and sale, producing turnover and surplus, constituted an independent commercial venture or an activity incidental and inseparable from the charitable object of providing fair and remunerative prices to small and marginal farmers and protecting them from exploitation by middlemen. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention, supported by documents, that milk procurement is directly linked to ensuring higher prices and economic upliftment of the targeted class of poor farmers and is not a standalone profit-making business. Relying on CBDT Circular No. 11/2008, the Tribunal held that "relief of the poor" expressly covers small and marginal farmers and that incidental commercial activity does not take such entities out of section 2(15), provided statutory conditions are met. The Tribunal also relied on the Kerala High Court decision in Biowin Agro Research, which in similar factual circumstances (procurement and sale of agricultural produce from poor and marginal farmers with substantial payments to them) held the activities to be "relief of the poor" and not merely GPU. The Supreme Court's exposition in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority was applied to affirm that the restrictive proviso to section 2(15) does not apply to "per se" charitable categories like relief of the poor, unlike GPU. The reliance by the Revenue on Thiagarajar Charities was rejected as inapposite to the present factual and legal context and overshadowed by later jurisprudence and the specific CBDT circular.

Conclusions: The assessee's dominant purpose is "relief of the poor" in the form of upliftment and welfare of small and marginal farmers. The milk procurement, chilling, processing and sale activities are merely incidental and inseparable from this charitable object. The assessee's activities fall squarely within the first limb of section 2(15) as "relief of the poor". The proviso to section 2(15) dealing with commercial activities of GPU entities is not attracted.

Issue 3 - Compliance with section 11(4A) and entitlement to exemption under sections 11 and 12

Legal framework (as discussed): Section 11(4A) prescribing conditions for business income of charitable entities-namely, that the business should be incidental to attainment of the objectives and separate books of account should be maintained; CBDT Circular No. 11/2008 reiterating that entities engaged in "relief of the poor" may incidentally carry on commercial activities if these conditions are fulfilled.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found, on the basis of submissions and records, that milk-related operations were carried out solely to further the assessee's charitable objective of supporting small and marginal farmers and could not be divorced from that purpose. It was further noted that the assessee maintained separate books of account in respect of such business activity. The Tribunal accepted that the conditions of section 11(4A), as explained in Circular No. 11/2008, were complied with, and that the major and predominant activity remained provision of relief to poor farmers, with milk operations constituting only an incidental activity necessary for effectively achieving the charitable objective.

Conclusions: The milk procurement and processing activity constitutes business incidental to the attainment of the assessee's charitable objects, and separate books of account are maintained. The statutory requirements of section 11(4A) are satisfied. Consequently, the assessee is entitled to exemption under sections 11 and 12 for the income arising from such activities.

Issue 4 - Binding effect of prior Tribunal order in assessee's own case

Legal framework (as discussed): Principle that coordinate bench decisions in assessee's own case on identical facts are binding in absence of change in facts or law.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal referred to its earlier order in the assessee's own case for AY 2017-18, wherein, on materially identical facts, it had held that the assessee's dominant purpose was "relief of the poor" and that milk-related operations were only incidental to the charitable purpose. No material change in facts or in the relevant legal position was shown by the Revenue. The Tribunal therefore treated the earlier decision as having persuasive and binding force for the present assessment years.

Conclusions: The prior coordinate bench decision in the assessee's own case, affirming its status as an entity engaged in "relief of the poor" with incidental milk operations, is applicable and reinforces the assessee's claim for exemption in the present years.

Issue 5 - Sustainability of the addition representing surplus from milk activities

Interpretation and reasoning: The addition represented the net surplus of Rs. 13,93,29,934/- from milk trading/processing activities, treated by the Assessing Officer as taxable business income following denial of exemption under section 11. Having held that the assessee's activities fall within "relief of the poor", that the proviso to section 2(15) is inapplicable, and that the conditions of section 11(4A) are met, the foundation for treating the surplus as taxable business income no longer survived. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's income was otherwise returned as exempt under sections 11 and 12 and there was no independent challenge to application of income apart from the characterisation of activities as commercial.

Conclusions: The denial of exemption under section 11 by the Assessing Officer and its confirmation by the appellate authority are unjustified. The assessee is entitled to exemption under sections 11 and 12, and the addition of Rs. 13,93,29,934/- is directed to be deleted.

Issue 6 - Application of decision to the second appeal (another assessment year)

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the facts and circumstances in the second appeal for the other assessment year were identical to those in the lead appeal. No distinct factual or legal issue was shown to warrant a different conclusion.

Conclusions: The reasoning and decision in the lead appeal apply mutatis mutandis to the second appeal. Both appeals are allowed and the assessee's claim to exemption under sections 11 and 12 is upheld for both assessment years.

---