Shri Hari Har Charitable and Welfare Trust vs ITO (Exemption) Ward IV

“1.

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the appellant Application for approval under Section 80G sub section 5 clause iii of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that the appellant trust is established for charitable purposes and not for the benefit of any particular religious’ community or caste as envisaged under the said provision.

2.

That the learned CIT Exemptions failed to appreciate that the clause in the Trust Deed referring to religious activities is general and enabling in nature and does not mandate the trust to carry out religious activities. The dominant purpose of the trust is charitable which is evident from its objects and actual activities.

3.

That the learned CIT Exemptions has erred in law in invoking Explanation 3 to Section 80G to disqualify the appellant solely on the basis of one incidental clause in the Trust Deed ignoring the settled judicial principle that incidental or enabling clauses do not alter the dominant charitable character of the trust.

4.

That the learned CIT Exemptions has erred in concluding that the appellant incurred expenditure on religious events without appreciating that such expenditure was for cultural and social purposes benefitting the general public and not for propagation of any particular religion or caste.

5.

That the learned CIT Exemptions has erred in placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd vs CIT 1997 93 Taxman 645 SC. The said decision is clearly distinguishable on facts inasmuch as in that case the trust had an object to establish and maintain places of worship which was wholly religious and actively pursued. However, in the appellant case the clause in the Trust Deed is merely enabling and has never been acted upon. The actual activities of the appellant are purely charitable in nature and there is no evidence on record to suggest that the trust benefits any particular religious’ community or caste. Therefore, the ratio laid down in Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd does not apply to the facts of the appellant case

6.

That the Learned CIT Exemptions erred in law and on facts in denying approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 despite the fact that the appellant trust has not undertaken any religious activities since its inception. The trustee is a qualified Ayurvedic medical practitioner holding a BAMS degree from Vivekanand Vishva Vidyapeeth thereby possessing the requisite credentials to promote health and wellness.

7.

That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions failed to appreciate the facts that the trust has been actively engaged in organizing various Yoga programs and wellness initiatives aimed at promoting naturopathy and holistic health among the general public. That the activities of the trust are purely charitable in nature and fall within the scope of medical relief and advancement of general public utility as defined under section 2 sub section 15 of the Act and therefore qualify for approval under section 80G.

8.

That the denial of 80G approval is unjustified and contrary to the spirit and intent of the Income Tax Act which seeks to encourage genuine charitable activities through tax incentives.

9.

That the learned CIT Exemptions has failed to consider that the appellant satisfies all the conditions laid down under Section 80G sub section 5 of the Act and is entitled to approval.

10.

That the appellant reserves the right to add alter amend delete or modify any or all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”