33. CIT vs.
Naroda Enviro Projects Ltd.; [2019] 419 ITR
482 (Guj.) Date of order:
29th July, 2019 A.Ys.: 2009-10
Charitable
purpose – Meaning of – Sections 2(15) and 11 of ITA, 1961 – Preservation of environment
is an object of general public utility – Polluting industries setting up
company for prevention of pollution – Object not to earn profit – Fact that
members of company would benefit is not relevant – Company entitled to
exemption u/s 11
The assessee company was incorporated on 19th October, 1995
and was later converted into a company limited by shares incorporated u/s 25 of
the Companies Act, 1956. The assessee company was engaged in the activity of
preservation of environment by providing pollution control treatment for
disposal of liquid and solid industrial waste. The assessee company was
registered u/s 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as a charitable institution.
For the A.Y. 2009-10 the assessee had filed its return of income declaring total
income (loss) of Rs. 258 (Rupees two hundred and fifty eight only) along with
the auditor’s report u/s 12A(b) of the Act in Form 10B claiming exemption u/s
11 of the Act. The AO took the view that the assessee company is not entitled
to seek exemption u/s 11 and held as under:
‘i) The assessee is carrying on
business activity under the pretext of charitable activity. The incidental
profit cannot be for all the years and not to the extent reflected in the table
given in the order.
ii) The objects specified in the
memorandum of association are important but the same have to be considered with
reference to the real practice adopted for running the activity, i.e., whether
it is charitable or for the purpose of making profit. The object included in
definition of “charitable purpose” as defined in section 2(15) should be
evidenced by charity; otherwise even environment consultant will also claim
exemption u/s 11 being a trust or a company u/s 25.
iii) The action is carried out for
the benefit of members to discharge their onus of treatment of chemicals, etc.
with substantial charge with intention to earn profit under the shelter of
section 25 of the Companies Act.
iv) Hence it is held that the assessee is rendering service of pollution
control as per the norms laid down by the Gujarat State Pollution Control Board
or any other authority responsible for the regulation of pollution in relation
to any trade, commerce or business carried out by the industries located in the
industrial area of Naroda, Vatva and Odhav for a uniform cess or fee or any
other consideration, irrespective of the nature of use or application, or
retention, of the income of such activity. Since the aggregate value of
receipts are more than Rs. 10,00,000 both the provisos to section 2(15)
are applicable to the assessee company and it is not entitled for exemption.’
The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal held that taking an overall
view, the dominant objects of the assessee were charitable as the dominant
object was not only preservation of the environment, but one of general public
utility and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to seek exemption u/s 11 of
the Act.
On appeal by the Revenue, the Gujarat High Court upheld the decision of
the Tribunal and held as under:
‘i) The assessee was a company
engaged in the activity of preservation of the environment by providing
pollution control treatment for disposal of liquid and solid industrial waste.
The benefit accrued to the members of the company. The members were none other
than the owners of the polluting industries. These members were obliged in law
to maintain the parameters as prescribed by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board
and in law for the purpose of discharge of their trade effluents, in other
words, discharge of solid and liquid waste. If they did not do so, they would
be liable to be prosecuted and their units would also be liable to be closed.
ii) However, this, by itself, was
not sufficient to take the view that the company had not been set up for a
charitable purpose. The birth of this company also needed to be looked into
closely. The fact that the members of the assessee company were benefited was
merely incidental to the carrying out of the main or primary purpose and if the
primary purpose was charitable, the fact that the members of the assessee
benefited would not militate against its charitable character nor would it make
the purpose any less charitable.
iii) Prior to the introduction of
the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, the assessee company was
granted registration u/s 12A of the Act. From this it was clear that prior to
the introduction of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, the
authority, upon due consideration of all the relevant aspects, had arrived at
the satisfaction that the assessee company was established for charitable
purposes. The company continued to be recognised as a charitable institution.
The certificate issued u/s 12A, after due inquiry, was still in force.
iv) The driving force was not the
desire to earn profit, but the object was to promote, aid, foster and engage in
the area of environment protection, abatement of pollution of various kinds
such as water, air, solid, noise, vehicular, etc., without limiting its scope.
In short, the main object was preservation and protection of the environment.
v) The Commissioner (Appeals) and
the Appellate Tribunal had concurrently held that taking an overall view, the
dominant objects of the assessee were charitable as the dominant object was not
only preservation of the environment, but one of general public utility and,
therefore, the assessee was entitled to seek exemption under section 11 of the
Act. The Tribunal was the last fact-finding body. As a principle, this court
should not disturb the findings of fact in an appeal under section 260A of the
Act unless the findings of fact are perverse.’
