By Ajay R. Singh, Advocate
Director of Income Tax
(E) vs. M/s. Shree Nashik Panchvati Panjrapole. [ Income tax Appeal no 1695 of
2014, dt : 20/03/2017 (Bombay High Court)].
Director of Income Tax
(E) vs. M/s. Shree Nashik Panchvati Panjrapole.] [ITA NO. 1198/Mum/2012; Bench : J ; dated 26/03/2014 ; A Y: 2009-10 .
Mum. ITAT ]
The assessee trust is over 130 years old and
registered with the Charity Commissioner since 1953. The assessee was granted
Certificate of Registration under Section 12A of the Act. By Finance (No.2)
Act, 2009, the definition of “Charitable Purpose” u/s. 2(15) of the Act was
amended w.e.f. 12th April, 2009. Therefore, in view of the newly
added proviso, charitable purpose would not include advancement of any other
object of general purpose utility, if it involves carrying out activities in
the nature of trade, commerce or business, with receipts in excess of Rs.10
lakhs. In view of the above amendment, the DIT (Exemption) issued a show cause
notice that the income and expenditure account of the assessee, revealed income
on account of sale of milk at Rs.1.57 crore and income from interest and
dividend at Rs.58.34 lakh. Thus, indicating that the activities carried out by
the assessee of selling milk was in the nature of trade, commerce or business.
In its
reply, the assessee pointed out that it is running a Panjrapole i.e. for
protection of cows and oxen for over last 130 years. The activity of selling
milk was incidental to its Panjrapole activity and in any case did not involve
any trade, commerce or business, so as to be hit by the newly added proviso to
section 2(15) of the Act.
The DIT(E)
cancelled the respondent’s registration under the Act by invoking section
12AA(3) of the Act. The basis for cancellation of the registration was that in
view of the newly added proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, its income by way
of sale of milk, interest and dividend being in excess of Rs.10 lakhs the
assessee would cease to be a trust for charitable purpose. The DIT (E) further
records in his order the fact that the assessee was earning only Rs.3.76 lakhs
from its aforesaid activity of selling milk would not detract from the
application of the newly added proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. This for
the reason that the proviso as applicable is receipt based and not profit /
income based.
Being
aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal records
the following facts : ( a) the fundamental / dominant function of the Trust is
to provide asylum to old, maimed, sick, weak, disabled and stray animals and
birds particularly cows; (b) that only 25% of the cows being looked after yield
milk and it is these milk yielding cows which support the balance 75% of the
cows which are non milk yielding; (c) that the milk needs to be procured from
the cows otherwise it will be detrimental to the health of the cows, if not
fatal; (d) the milk so procured is distributed free of charge to children,
schools, hospitals etc. and the balance amount of milk remaining after such free
distribution is sold to the general public at nominal rate; (e) the assessee is
selling milk at subsidized rates; and (f) nothing has been brought on record to
suggest that the Trust conducted its affairs solely on commercial basis.
The Tribunal
after recording the above facts inter alia placed reliance on a decision
of the Tribunal in the case of Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust vs. ADIT (Exem)
25 ITR 701 on an identical facts situation wherein it has been held that
the activities of selling milk by a Panjrapole will not by itself make the
newly added proviso to section 2(15) of the Act applicable. Further, reliance
was also placed in the impugned order upon the decision of the Delhi High Court
in ICAI vs. Director General of Income Tax (Exemption) 347 ITR 99 to
hold that the activities of selling milk by the assessee would be incidental in
running a Panjrapole in view of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. Thus,
the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
On appeal by the Revenue the Hon. High Court observed
that there is no bar in law to a Trust
selling its produce at market price as held
by the Gujarat High Court in
Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust in Tax Appeal No.1162 of 2013 dated 15th
January, 2014. In fact, the above factor alone will not make it an activity of
trade, commerce or business or even in its nature.
The Court also referred to another decision of the
Delhi High Court in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India & Anr.
(ICAI) vs. Director General of Income Tax (Exemption) & Ors. 358 ITR
91, where the Court held that the expression “business”, “trade” or “commerce”
as used in the first proviso must, thus, be interpreted restrictively and where
the dominant object of an organisation is charitable any incidental activity
for furtherance of the object would not fall within the expressions “business”,
“trade” or “commerce”.” (emphasis supplied).
The Court observed
that the Revenue has not been able to
show that the view taken by the Apex Court in Surat Art Silk Cloth
Manufacturers’ Association (supra), Gujarat High Court in Sabarmati
Ashram Gaushala Trust in Tax Appeal No.1162 of 2013 (supra) and the
Delhi High Court in ICAI 347 ITR 99 (supra) and ICAI and Anr. 358 ITR 91
(supra) laying down the dominant activity test should not be followed.
Therefore, it was held that the question as proposed does not give rise to any
substantial question of law. Thus, appeal was dismissed.
