2. CIT (Exemption)
vs. United Way of Baroda [2020] 423 ITR 596
(Guj.) Date of order: 25th
February, 2020 A.Y.: 2014-15
Charitable institution – Exemption –
Sections 2(15) and 11 of ITA, 1961 – Denial of exemption – Activity for profit
– Effect of proviso to section 2(15) – Concurrent finding of appellate
authorities that the assessee was charitable institution – Event organised to
raise money – Amount earned entitled to exemption
The assessee is a
charitable institution registered u/s 12A of the Act. For the A.Y. 2014-15, the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income as Nil after claiming exemption u/s
11. But the A.O. assessed the total income at Rs. 4,53,97,808. He had found
that the assessee had received a total sum of Rs. 5,48,04,054 which included
Rs. 4,37,61,637 as income from organising the event of garba during the
Navratri festival. According to the A.O., the assessee sold passes and gave
food stalls on rent, etc., which constitutes 79.85% of its total income. The
assessee, during the year, had declared gross receipts of Rs. 5,27,40,432 and
showed surplus of Rs. 26,27,243. The assessee thereby claimed Rs. 4,42,59,665
as income from charitable event. The A.O. held that the activities of the
assessee as per the amended provision of section 2(15) could not be said to be
advancement of any other object of general public utility and, therefore, the
assessee was not eligible to claim the benefit under sections 11 and 12,
respectively, more particularly in view of section 13(8) of the Act. The A.O.,
having regard to the gross receipts of Rs. 5,48,04,054, made the addition of
Rs. 58,90,500 on account of the interest on FSF fund and Rs. 1,67,90,118 on
account of anonymous donation.
The Commissioner of
Income-tax (Appeals), allowed the appeal of the assessee, taking the view that
the activities of the assessee could be termed as charitable in nature and the
assessee would be eligible for the benefit under sections 11 and 12. The
Tribunal concurred with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and
dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.
On appeal by the
Revenue, the Gujarat High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as
under:
‘i) Once the activity of the assessee falls within
the ambit of trade, commerce or business, it no longer remains a charitable
activity and the assessee is not entitled to claim any exemption under sections
11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The expression “trade”, “commerce” and
“business” as occurring in the first proviso to section 2(15) must be
read in the context of the intent and purport of section 2(15) and cannot be
interpreted to mean any activity which is carried on in an organised manner.
The purpose and the dominant object for which an institution carries on its
activities is material to determine whether or not it is business.
ii) The object of introducing the first proviso
is to exclude organisations which carry on regular business from the scope of
“charitable purpose”. An activity would be considered “business” if it is
undertaken with a profit motive, but in some cases, this may not be
determinative. Normally, the profit motive test should be satisfied, but in a
given case the activity may be regarded as a business even when the profit
motive cannot be established. In such cases, there should be evidence and
material to show that the activity has continued on sound and recognised
business principles and pursued with reasonable continuity. There should be
facts and other circumstances which justify and show that the activity
undertaken is in fact in the nature of business.
iii) The main object of the
assessee could not be said to be organising the event of garba. The
assessee had been supporting 120 non-government organisations. The assessee was
into health and human services for the purpose of improving the quality of life
in society. All its objects were charitable. The activities like organising the
event of garba, including the sale of tickets and issue of passes, etc.,
cannot be termed as business. The two authorities had taken the view that
profit-making was not the driving force or the objective of the assessee. The
assessee was entitled to exemption under sections 11 and 12.’
