1. This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 25.7.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The appeal relates to Assessment Year 2007-08.
2. The appellant-Revenue has raised the following questions of law for our consideration:—
| "(A) |
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessee Trust was entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act,1961 in respect of anonymous donations amounting to Rs.84,36,407/- received by it in violation of the provisions of Section 115BBC of the Income Tax Act,1961 ? |
(B) |
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of Section 115BBC of the Income Tax Act,1961 are not applicable to the said anonymous donations received by assessee Trust which is registered as a charitable Trust, whereas Section 115BBC of the Act provides for exception only in cases of religious Trusts and Trusts created wholly for religious and charitable purposes ? |
(C) |
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing exemption under Section 11 of the Act in respect of said anonymous donations to the assessee Trust as an exception, based on services rendered by it to humanity, even though no such exception was provided in Section 115BBC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?" |
3. Briefly the facts are that the respondent-assessee is a charitable Trust engaged in maintaining gaushalas and tending to other animals and birds. It inter alia gives them food and shelter. So far as disabled animals and birds are concered it also runs a hospital/health centre for them. The respondent-assessee receives donations, from identified donors as also anonymous donations. During the subject Assessment Year the Assessing Officer in his assessment order dated 14 December 2009 after excluding identified donations brought to tax the anonymous donations Rs.84.36 lakhs under Section 115BBC of the Act.
4. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on detailed examination of the objects of the respondent-assessee Trust and the work carried out, concluded that the respondent - assessee-Trust is a Trust which has been established to fulfill charitable and religious purpose. In reaching the aforesaid conclusion, the respondent-assessee's activity was examined in the context of the decision of this Court in the case Vallabhdas Karsondas Natha v. CIT [1947] 15 ITR 32 and the Gujarat High Court's decision in the case CIT v. Swastik Textile Trading Co. (P.) Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 852.
5. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed an appeal to the Tribunal. By the impugned order the Tribunal upheld the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by reiterating that the decision of this Court in the case of Vallabhdas Karsondas Natha (supra) and the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of "Swastik Textile Trading Co. (P.) Ltd.", (supra) concludes the issue that the feeding and taking care of weak animals is not only charitable purpose but also a religious purpose. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
6. The grievance of the Revenue to the impugned order is that Section 115BBC of the Act is applicable in respect of anonymous donations as the respondent-Trust does not satisfy the exclusion provided in sub-section (2)(b) of Section 115BBC of the Act viz. any trust or institution created or established wholly for religious and charitable purpose. According to the revenue, the Trust not being one for religious purposes but only for charitable purposes, the anonymous donations are liable to be taxed under sub-section (1) of Section 115BBC of the Act.
7. We find that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has inter alia recorded the following fact that:—
"The Trust was declared by Sir Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy, Knight by a Trust Deed dated October 18, 1834 for the keep of stray cattle and other animals with a view to protect their lives. … … …
For last more than 176 years, the trust has been engaged in taking care of the old, infirm and disabled animals and birds. For this purpose, apart from the panjrapole at Bhuleshwar it has branches at Raita, Mala, Walsing, Lakhivali, Chembur and Bhilad. As of February 2010, the Trust had in all 1800 animals and birds in the panjrapole including approximately 1100 cows, 50 bullocks, 50 dogs, 250 goats, 200 pigeons and 150 other birds, etc. The Courts, the Police and the public at large leave the animals and birds who have met with some accident, or who have been ill treated by their owners or who have been rescued from the slaughter houses into the Trust panjrapole. The Trust provides such animals and birds with medical care, food and shelter."
This shows that the Trust was created/established for charitable purposes. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have decided the appeal before them by placing reliance upon the binding decision of this Court in the case "Vallabhdas Karsondas Natha" (supra) wherein the Court inter alia considered the issue whether supply of fodder to animals and cattle would amount to a charitable and/or religious purpose. In the above context, the Court observed that "that to a Hindu nothing can be of greater religious merit than to relieve suffering of dumb cattle and animals by giving them fodder. It is hardly necessary to emphasize that, according to Hindu religion and philosophy, animals have the same soul as human beings have and the spark of divinity is as much present in them as in human beings." Thereafter, concluded by holding that "supply of fodder to cattle and animals is not only a good religious trust but it is also a good charitable trust." Therefore, the submissions of the Revenue is in the face of the decision of this Court in "Vallabhdas Karsondas Natha" (supra) wherein taking care of animals is considered to be a charitable as well as religious activity. We may also refer to the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Swastik Textile Trading Co. (P.) Ltd. (supra) wherein the issue for consideration was whether establishing, maintaining, running and helping gaushalas, panjarapoles and other similar institutions for animals, would be considered to be a charitable and religious purpose. The Gujarat High Court placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case "Vallabhdas Karsondas Natha" (supra) and inter alia observed as under:—
"Hinduism worships all creation :
(Peace be unto all bipeds and so to all quadrupeds). Indeed, the love of sub-human brethren is high religion.
"He prayeth best, who loveth best
All things both great and small
For the dear God who loveth us
He made and loveth all. (Coleridge, in Ancient Mariner)
From the Budha and Mahavira to St. Francis of Assissi and Gandhiji, compassion for living creatures is a profound religious motivation. The sublime mind of Mullick was obviously in religious sympathy with fellow beings of the lower order when he showed this tenderness to birds and beasts and shared it with the public. … …. ….
Therefore, this decision settles any doubt in the present controversy as to there being some assumed antithesis between religion and charity. As pointed out by Chagla J., in the earliest decision such a trust for animals, particularly domestic animals, may be both good charity and good religion. Compassion for living creatures although it motivates all true religion is also practical spirituality as it has an elevating moral influence, fostering a deep sense of fellow-feeling and fraternity. Such acts not only fulfill our cherished human values but they equally promote public good and welfare and are, therefore, dominantly religion-charitable. … … … " (Emphasis supplied)
In fact at times religious and charitable purposes may overlap. Charitable activities in all cases arise out of compassion while most religion treat compassion as a religious attribute.
8. In view of the fact that the Tribunal has dismissed the Revenue's appeal by following the binding decision of this Court in the case of "Vallabhdas Karsondas Natha" (supra)", no substantial questions of law arise for our consideration. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.