TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 532
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA No. 2239/Del/2016 for the Assessment Year ('AY') 2012-13. 2. The question urged by the Revenue is whether it could be said that the Assessee-Society is a charitable society established 'for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste' thereby in violation of Section 13 (1) (b) of the Act? 3. It is the case of the Revenue that the Respondent-Society ('Assessee') was carrying out activities 'directed towards the benefit of a particular community' and therefore, in terms of Section 13 (1) (b) of the Act, it is not entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Act. 4. The facts are that the Assessee -Society is registered under Section 12A (a) of the Act in terms ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ograms of the Church, or (ii) if necessary to administer such programs and conduct all such activities in the name of the Society, subject in all cases to compliance with applicable laws" 6. The factual finding returned by the ITAT by the impugned order dated 7th October 2016 is that the Assessee was actually carrying out the following activities. "(i) Daily Meetings on essentials of life. (ii) Conference and Seminars. (iii) Health Camps. (iv) Adult Education Programmes. (v) Programmes on values of life for Young Adults. (vi) Programmes on Good Citizenship. (vii) Programmes on family values and Self Reliance. (viii) Conduct District and Branch Affairs. (ix) Teach Community Welfare. (x) Develop Talent for Cul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e AO held that the Assessee was not using its funds for public benefit but rather for the benefit of specified persons under Section 13(3) of the Act. The AO held: "The claim of the assessee that it is a composite society is not tenable as stated in Para 4. 0 above Article IV (Powers) (H), wherein society has been stated to be charitable in nature. Also, nowhere the MOA of the assessee mentions such term and therefore, this claim of assessee is not tenable and is treated a charitable society working towards the benefit of particular religious community." 10. The Assessee then went in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)']. The attention of the CIT(A) was drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar it stated that the programmes conducted by the Assessee Society "are open for public at large without any distinction of caste from a creed or religion and the benefits of these programmes held at the meeting house are available to the general public at large." 12. At this stage, the Court would like to refer to the decision in Dawoodi Bohra Jamat (supra) where the Supreme Court observed as under: "In our considered view, determination of nature of trust as wholly religious or wholly charitable or both charitable and religious under the Act is not a question of fact. It is but a question which requires examination of legal effects of the proven facts and documents, that is, the legal implication of the objects of the respondent tru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t be expelled out of the purview of section 13(1)(b) per se. The section requires it to be established that such charitable purpose is not for the benefit of a particular religious community or caste. That is to say, it needs to be examined whether such religious-charitable activity carried on by the trust only benefits a certain particular religious community or class or serves across the communities and for society at large [Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust c. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 234 (SC)]. The section of community sought to be benefited must be either sufficiently defined or identifiable by a common quality of a public or impersonal nature [CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1965) 55 ITR 722]" 14. After noticing the decision in CIT v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Revenue to be perverse. It is not the percentage of expenditure on persons not belonging to the religious community that mattered. What was significant was that there were donations made by the Society for the general public utility. This showed that it was not exclusively for the benefit of one particular religious community. 16. The CIT (A) had proceeded on the basis that although the Assessee Society was for both religious and charitable purposes, since it was for the benefit of only one religious community the provision of Section 13 (1) (b) would apply to deny it exemption under Section 11 of the Act. The above conclusion was legally flawed. It was contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Dawoodi Bohra Jamat (supra) which he....