So, a trust/institution engaged in such activities comes within the mischief of Explanation 3 to Section 80G and would not be eligible for special deductions, permissible under Section 80G, for donations by the donors. This decision, however, needs a review by the apex court.

This section permits deduction from the total income of taxpayers donations to certain funds and charitable institutions on satisfaction of the conditions mentioned.

Generally, the deduction permissible is equal to 50 per cent of the donations made, but in the situations mentioned in the section, it can go up to 100 per cent. One condition mentioned for allowing deduction is in clause (iii) of sub-section(5) of Section 80G, which stipulates that deduction would not be permissible if the institution or fund is for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste.

The Explanation to the section further says that ‘charitable purpose’ for Section 80G does not include any purpose, the whole or substantially the whole of which is of a religious nature.

Registered under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, donations to the trust have been considered eligible for Section 80G benefit for the past 20 years. No new facts have emerged which may justify reconsideration of the past decision even accepting the fact that the principle of res judicata does not apply to I-T proceedings.

The objects of the trust, inter alia, are:

To publish books that are the foundation of ‘Arsha Vijnanam’, in particular Ramayanam, Mahabharatham, Bhagavatham and Mahakayas;

To publish the original texts of vedas, vedanyas, upanyas and leading darshanas, itihasas and other works on Indian philosophy, lectures, art and all works on Indian culture;

To promote and propagate ‘Arsha Vijnanam’ among the citizens of India, by conducting lectures, satsangs, classes, seminars, etc., and to honour scholars and persons who distinguished themselves in interpreting and spreading ‘Arsha Vijnanam’.

Holding that the object of the trust is for religious purpose, the High Court said: “If the contentions of the petitioner are accepted, that the publication of books like Ramayana, Mahabhartha and Bhagvatham are not religious, then the publication of any sacred book cannot be termed to be religious. All religions preach dharma and if the interpretations placed by the petitioners on the sacred books are accepted, then all religions can claim to have cultural, historical and literary parts in their books”.

Respectfully, the conclusion reached does not seem to be justified.

It is unfortunate that the court has merely considered the fact that the trust publishing Ramayana, etc., cannot but be a religious trust, disregarding the main object, which is to promote and propagate ‘Arsha Vijnanam’.

These two words imply wisdom of sages [Rishis], inter alia, implying philosophical truths in a scientific way [as is indicated by the word vijnanam] — not in a narrow way referring to particular castes, creed or religion.

The objects mentioned show that the publication was to be done of all types of books that are the foundation of scientific wisdom — of any religion, perhaps.

The High Court, it appears, has concentrated mainly on the three epics mentioned in one of the objects. The objects clearly show that the trust’s major thrust is to propagate the knowledge of ‘Arsha Dharma’ (Saints’ Wisdom), and not any narrow religious thinking.

There is no definition of the terms ‘religion’ or ‘religious purpose’ in the I-T Act or even in the Indian Constitution. Religion in its broadest sense includes all forms of beliefs in the existence of superior beings, capable of exercising power over the human race — not towards only particular communities or people.

As commonly accepted, it means the formal recognition of universal God — not Gods of Hindus, Muslims, Christians, etc. It does not mean fundamentalism. Publication of books, which have universal popularity and have been translated into various languages, though having Hindu mythological background, cannot be considered a religious activity as the books can be read and benefit derived therefrom by any person — not merely those who are Hindus.

In CIT vs Social Service Centre (2001 250 ITR 39), the Andhra Pradesh High Court itself has held that the donation to a church or construction of a church is not a purpose, which is not of general public utility, meaning thereby that it cannot be considered to be a religious act concerning Christians. On this analogy, it could be said that publication of Hindu mythology books for general circulation is for universal good and hence not a religious activity.

The High Court’s decision raises a fundamental issue, which needs to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Sections 2(15), 11 to 13 and 80G need to be reconciled from practical angles — not by theoretical or doctrinal approaches.

Section 11 provides for exemption of income from property held for ‘charitable or religious purposes’ and Sections 11 to 13 make no distinction between religious and charitable purposes.

The High Court’s decision will create a peculiar situation. The income of the trust would be exempt under Section 11, but the person, giving donation, will not get tax benefit because of denial of approval under Section 80G.

Literary works such as Ramayana, Mahabharata, Bhagvat Gita, or for that matter the Bible, Koran, are works of excellence and are read by persons of different faiths, having been translated in many languages. To say that their publication is a religious activity belies logic.

More Stories on : Taxation | Courts/Legal Issues

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page