MAHADEVAN, J. and J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J. (Order of the court was made by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) According to the appellant, Sri Amirthakadeswaraswamy Devasthanam, located at Tirukkadaiyur, Mayiladuthurai Taluk, Nagapattinam District, is an ancient and famous Saiva Temple, which is listed as religious
C.M.P.No.21665 of 2021 in W.A.No.3128 of 2021
- MAHADEVAN, J.
and
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
(Order of the court was made by R.MAHADEVAN, J.)
According to the appellant, Sri Amirthakadeswaraswamy Devasthanam, located at Tirukkadaiyur, Mayiladuthurai Taluk, Nagapattinam District, is an ancient and famous Saiva Temple, which is listed as religious institution under section 46(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (for brevity, ‘the HR&CE Act, 1959’). The HR&CE Department had also given a certificate to that effect. While so, the first respondent issued a notice dated 23.11.2017 under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, calling upon the appellant to file return of income for the assessment year 2017-18. Following the same, the second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 05.08.2019 under section 144, directing the appellant to file explanation with regard to the cash deposit made during the period of demonetization, to which, the appellant filed its reply, stating that they are not liable to file return of income in view of the exemption granted under section 10(23BBA) of the Income tax Act and they also requested the second respondent to refer the case to the third respondent viz., Joint Commissioner of Income tax (Exemptions), under section 144A of the Act. Accordingly, the case was referred to the third respondent, who by order dated 23.09.2019, directed the second respondent /Assessing Officer to verify the bank accounts and proceed further as per law. Challenging the same, the appellant filed WP.No.29312 of 2019, which was dismissed by the learned Judge, by order dated 18.02.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has come up with this intra court appeal.
2.At the outset, it would be relevant to refer to the observation of the learned Judge, in the order impugned herein, which reads as under:
“34.The argument of the Sri Amirthakadeswaraswamy Devasthanam to the effect that it should be deemed to have been constituted under the 1863 Central Act is, in my view, not liable to be accepted as the link is too circuitous and indirect. While one could take a purposive view on the meaning of ‘established, constituted or appointed’ in section 10(23BBA), the object and spirit of the provision is to bifurcate the managerial entity from the temple/religious establishment that it manages, in order that the roles, functions and two income-generating apparatus, are clearly demarcated. This is not possible in the absence of a scheme as there is no clarity on the bifurcation of assets or functions. The intention of the exemption under section 10(23BBA) is to benefit only those entities whose role is managerial or administrative and not commercial, engaged with the purpose of income generation.”
3.It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the position and status of the temple changed after the 1951 HR&CE Act and the appellant is a body deemed to be established under the Religious Endowments Act, 1863; the HR&CE Department had also given a certificate to the effect that the appellant temple will be governed by the provisions of section 46(iii) of the HR&CE Act, 1959; and therefore, the appellant is entitled to be exempted from filing returns in terms of section 10(23BBA) of the Income Tax Act. Without considering the said aspects, the learned Judge has held that the appellant is not a body established under Religious Endowments Act, 1863 and hence, they are not entitled for exemption.
4.Mr.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned senior standing counsel, taking notice for the respondents, submitted that there are certain legal issues involved, which have to be adjudicated, after analysing the relevant provisions of the Act and case laws. Therefore, she sought time for placing her submissions.
5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant coupled with the documents enclosed in the typed set of papers, which establish a
prima facie case, this court is inclined to grant an interim order in their favour.
Accordingly, there shall be an order of interim stay.
6.Post the matter after four weeks.
[R.M.D., J.] [J.S.N.P., J.] 09.02.2022
rk
- MAHADEVAN, J. and
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
rk
CMP.No.21665 of 2021 in WA.No.3128 of 2021 Dated : 09.02.2022
