The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of whether a trust or society exclusively benefits a particular religious community or caste under Section 13(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act requires factual examination and analysis of the nature of the activities and their beneficiaries.

S. Muralidhar, J.

1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) is directed against the order dated 7th October 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 2239/Del/2016 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2012-13.

2. The question urged by the Revenue is whether it could be said that the Assessee-Society is a charitable society established ‘for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste’ thereby in violation of Section 13 (1) (b) of the Act?

3. It is the case of the Revenue that the Respondent-Society ('Assessee') was carrying out activities ‘directed towards the benefit of a particular community’ and therefore, in terms of Section 13 (1) (b) of the Act, it is not entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Act.

4. The facts are that the Assessee -Society is registered under Section 12A (a) of the Act in terms of a Registration Certificate dated 23rd October 1982. Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, learned Senior counsel for the Assessee -Society, has produced before the Court a copy of the said Registration Certificate which simply states that the application made by the Assessee-Society has been entered in the register maintained in the office of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-VI under Section 12A (a) of the Act.

5. The main object of the Assessee-Society is to undertake the dissemination of useful religious knowledge in conformity with the purposes of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, to assist in promulgation of worship in the Indian Union, to establish places of worship in the Indian Union, to promote, sustain and carry out programmes and activities of the Church, which are, among others, educational, charitable, religious, social and cultural etc. A second amendment to the Memorandum of Articles of Association was adopted by the Assessee-Society on 21st September 2002. Clause (h) of Article IV as amended reads thus:

“In order to serve the charitable purposes of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints (“the Church”) in providing educational opportunities to its young members who cannot afford to finance their educations, (i) to act as an agent of the Church or an affiliated entity thereof to disburse, collect, and service loans to students who qualify for low interest loans under the Perpetual Education Fund (“PEF”) or International Education Fund (“IEF”) programs of the Church, or (ii) if necessary to administer such programs and conduct all such activities in the name of the Society, subject in all cases to compliance with applicable laws”

6. The factual finding returned by the ITAT by the impugned order dated 7th October 2016 is that the Assessee was actually carrying out the following activities.

“(i) Daily Meetings on essentials of life.

(ii) Conference and Seminars.

(iii) Health Camps.

(iv) Adult Education Programmes.

(v) Programmes on values of life for Young Adults.

(vi) Programmes on Good Citizenship.

(vii) Programmes on family values and Self Reliance.

(viii) Conduct District and Branch Affairs.

(ix) Teach Community Welfare.

(x) Develop Talent for Cultural Arts.

(xi) Hold Programmes for Vocation Training.

(xii) Developing Leadership Skills.”

7. The further factual finding rendered by the ITAT is that “the above activities are for the benefit of the public at large and not for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste.”

8. It requires to be noted that no question of law has been urged or ground taken by the Revenue in the present appeal that the above factual findings of the ITAT are perverse and unsupported by the documents placed on record by the Assessee.

9. In the assessment order dated 27th February 2015 for the AY 2012-13, the Assessing Officer (AO) held that the Assessee was incurring expenditure for upkeep of the priests who belonged to a particular community. The AO observed that “their upkeep is no charity.” He then concluded that “the assessee society has not pursued any activity in the true nature of charity for t