ORDER
R.N. SINGHAL, A.M. :
These eight appeals by the assessee involve an identical issue. They were heard together. Hence for the sake of facility they are disposed of by a consolidated order.
2. For each of the four years involved original assessments were completed by granting benefit of S. 11. Subsequently for all the four years the CIT passed orders under S. 263 by holding that the original assessment orders were erroneous in so far as they were prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. He recorded certain observations but in the ultimate analysis he set aside the original orders with direction to pass fresh assessment orders. In the fresh assessments the Assessing Officer (AO) denied exemption under S. 11 and the CIT(A) agreed with the AO. So we have one set of four appeals which are directed against the orders under S. 263. Then we have another set of four appeals which are directed against the orders of the CIT(A) wherein the latter approved the AOs action of denying the benefit of S. 11 on fresh assessments. The Departmental authorities have in effect held that the assessee trust is not a religious trust but it is a charitable trust and further that in view of the provisions of S. 13(1)(b) it is not entitled to exemption under S. 11.
3. The learned advocate for the assessee before us first gave the background of the case by stating that the trust was created by trust deed dt. 15th July, 1976. Drawing our attention to the objects of the trust he very emphatically submitted that it was in reality a religious trust. He therefore, urged that the provisions of S. 13(1)(b) were not applicable at all because they applied to charitable trust and not religious trust. He drew supports from observations in the celebrated book by Shri Palkhiwala. He further submitted that for the sake of argument if it is not regarded as a religious trust then reasons for rejection of assessees first contention would come to the assessees rescue for supporting that it is not for a particular religious community or caste. He elaborated that if Jainism is religion the trust is a religious trust and if Jainism is not a religion then the trust even if regarded as charitable trust cannot be held to be for the benefit of a particular religious community.
4. In support of the contention that Jainism is not a religion he relied on observations in certain books on Jainism. His last alternative argument was that since trust had been registered under S. 12A and it had been finally held for and upto asst. yr. 1984-85 (from asst. yr. 1977-78) as entitled to exemption under S. 11 the said exemption cannot be denied without cancellation of registration under S. 12A. He relied on certain decisions for the purpose.
5. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that it was a charitable trust as the name also suggested and further submitted that it was for the benefit of a particular religious community viz. Jains. He supported the orders of the Departmental authorities in which the provisions of S. 13(1)(b) were held to be applicable. He repelled the learned advocates argument that so long as registration under S. 12A was subsisting the exemption under S. 11 could not be denied.
6. We have very carefully considered the rival submissions and the record. Obviously, most vital factor is the trust deed itself. Objects of the trust-nine in all are marked as 2(A) to 2(I) in the English translation of the trust deed which is originally in Gujarati. For the facility of exposition it would be better to reproduce them categorywise rather than serially.
7. First category will contain seven objects as follows :
(A) To make arrangement at Shatrunjaya Tirth Palitana and at any other place for establishment of Upashraya for Jain Sadhus, and Sadhvis and to manage such Upashraya. To furnish medical aid to Sadhus, Sadhvis and other pious people.
(B) To carry out repairs of Derasar at Shatrunjaya Tirth Palitana and at other places where Derasar is situated and to manage such Derasar.
(C) To arrange for study of Jain religion. To arrange religious lectures and to propagate Jain religion.
(F) To undertake and carry out necessary activities for “Jeevdaya”.
(G) To facilitate the performance of religious ceremony and the persons performing the same.
(H) To help the needy Shravaks and Shravikas.
(I) To carry out any other religious activity as per custom and principles of Jain Swetamber Murti Pujak religion.”
8. The second category would have the remaining two objects viz. 2(D) and 2(E) which are as follows :
(D) to establish Ayamhilshala or Bhojanshala for those who observe fast.
(E) to make arrangement of Bhojanshala for pilgrims.”
9. Even a plain reading of the seven objects put in the first category reveals that the settlor intended it to be a religious trust. All these seven objects are wholly or atleast predominantly of religious nature. The other two objects falling in the second category may be regarded as primarily charitable in nature if read in isolation. However, if those two objects are also read along with the other seven objects it would be obvious that they also have the hue of religious nature. Undoubtedly all the objects have to be read as a whole and in doing so it is obvious that the objects deserve to be treated as religious in nature.
10. While still on this aspect we may mention that learned and detailed arguments were made as to whether Jainism is a religion at all. On careful consideration, we find that some authorities have propounded that it is not a religion, but a way of life. In our opinion, those authorities should be viewed as laying down the philosophy of Jainism. The trust deed has to be understood as would be understood by a common man and as was intended by the settlor. We would, therefore, hold that the objects of the trust clearly show that the trust is a religious trust.
11. In regard to the name we may mention that the name itself is not conclusive. Apart from this fact the position is that in Indian society and particularly in the section of the society to which persons concerned including the settlor belong, religion and charity are ordinarily regarded as intimately related. It is obvious also from Hindi words being “Dharmik” and “Dharmada” for “religious” and “charitable” respectively. In the name of the trust word charitable has been most probably used in that context.
12. We may further mention that the learned advocates alternative argument is also valid. Bar contained under S. 13(1)(b) would apply to the trust if it is for the “benefit of any particular religious community or caste”. If Jainism is regarded as a religion then the trust is not for a particular religious community or caste. We would uphold this alternative argument of the learned Advocate.
13. The last alternative argument of the learned advocate in regard to the subsisting registration under S. 12A we need only mention that registration under S. 12A is a condition precedent for claiming exemption under S. 11 and cannot be regarded as a conclusive proof for upholding the assessees claim. That alternative argument is rejected.
14 In this view of matter, orders under S. 263 for all the four years are cancelled. Consequently, the ensuing assessments and appellate proceedings would become redundant and assessees four appeals directed against the orders of the CIT(A) would also become redundant though on merits the view taken by the CIT(A) has been held by us to be wrong.
15. In effect assessees four appeals against orders under S. 263 are allowed. Assessees four appeals against orders of CIT(A) being redundant are treated for statistical purposes as dismissed.