JUDGMENT
D.K. Kapur, J.
1. The reference before us is concerned with the Hindu Mahasabha, which also owns a property, namely, Hindu Mahasabha Bhawan, new Delhi The question referred to us are :
“(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the objects of assessed were pre-dominantly for charitable purposes as defined in s. 2(15) of the IT Act, 1961 ?
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the whole or any portion of income by the assessed from Hindu Mahasabha Bhavan was exempt from tax u/ss 11 and 12 of the IT Act, 1961 ?”
This is at the instance of the Addl. CIT. The subject-matter of the reference has already been decided in another case by a Bench of this court. The citation is CIT v. All India Hindu Mahasabha (1983) 140 ITR 748 (Del). In that case a number of questions were referred of Which question Nos. 2 and 3 are the same as the ones now referred. The first question in that reference was as follows :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessed was a political organisation ?”
On an analysis of these several questions, the court come to the conclusion that the principal object of the assessed was to run a political party with the purpose of establishing a democratic Hindu State in Bharat. It was held that the other objects, most of which are of public nature and partly charitable were held to be subordinate in nature and in the circumstances, the court held that the assessed was not set up wholly for charitable purposes, and therefore, not entitle to the reliefs mentioned in ss. 11 and 12 of the IT Act, 1961.
2. Mr. Monga for the assessed has strongly urged that this judgment needs re-consideration on several grounds. He has referred to some other referred to some other reported cases to point out that the reasoning adopted for holding various institutions as being established for charitable purposes equally applied to the Hindu Mahasabha. The submission was that the objects of the all India Hindu Mahasabha were of general public utility and thus the question required reconsideration. In view of the fact that this question has been decided by a Bench of this court, we do not think that there are sufficient ground for reconsidering the matter. Following the said judgment, we answer the present reference in favor of the department and against the assessed. The question are accordingly answered in the negative and the parties are lift to bear their own costs.