In sharp contrast to the solicitude shown towards religions of foreign origin, income tax authorities are discriminating against Hindu temples, while tribunals which exercise quasi-judicial powers are introducing bizarre claims into their decision-making process, making a mockery of the constitution and the country’s native majority community. Matters have reached a point where it may be desirable for the higher judiciary to step in and end this sorry state of affairs.
In 2008, the Shiv Mandir Devsttan Panch Committee Sanstan, Nagpur, applied for income tax exemptions under section 80G(5)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Giving details of income, it listed its total expenditure on various items. The Commissioner Income Tax said the expenses for building maintenance, free food, festival prayer & daily expenses related to religious object and only a small sum of Rs.6,700/- was incurred for non-religious objects. He ruled that as the expenditure on religious object exceeds five per cent of the total income of the assessee trust, it was not doing ‘charitable activities’ and was working for the benefit of a particular religious community and was hence not entitled to exemption.
The Devsttan Committee moved the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur, saying that the temple is open to everybody irrespective of caste or creed or even without faith in the deities. The tribunal’s order (vide judicial member DT Garasia and accountant member PK Bansal) gave the trust the desired exemption, but seriously compromised the dignity and unity of the Hindu community. It is also at odds with the Constitution and established jurisprudence of over a century, and deserves correction.
The order of October 2012 pronounced that “Hinduism is a way of life of a civilized society” and “as such is not a religion”. It cited TT Kuppuswamy Chettiar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1987) 100 LW 1031 wherein it was held “The word ‘Hindu’ has not been defined in any of the texts nor in judgment made law. The word was given by British administrators to inhabitants of India, who were not Christians, Muslims, Parsis or Jews. The alleged Hindu religion consists of four castes brahmins, kshatriyas, vaishyas and sudras belonging ultimately to two schools of law, mitakshara and dayabhaga. There is, however, no religion by the name ‘Hindu’. It only shows that so called Hindu religion has been called for convenience.”
The tribunal declared that ‘Hindu’ consists of a number of communities having different gods who are worshipped in a different manner, different rituals, different ethical codes, who have little in common except a “vague faith in what may be called the fundamentals of the Hinduism”. It said, the word ‘community’ means a society of people living in the same place, under the same laws and regulations and who have common rights and privileges. This applies to Christianity or Islam but not to Hinduism. Hence, it cannot be said that Hindu is a separate community or a separate religion.
According to the tribunal, the pertinent clause in the law stipulates that the institution or trust must not be for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste. It ruled that the trust was not promoting any particular religion, and that Lord Shiva, Hanumanji, Goddess Durga do not represent any particular religion and are merely regarded to be the super power of the universe. On this bizarre logic, it granted the trust the desired exemption.
The tribunal’s ruling is clearly faulty and insulting to the Hindu majority. It is well known that the word ‘Hindu’ is a Persian mispronunciation of Sindhu (Indus), and ‘Hindustan’ the land beyond this river. Though originally geographical in nature, the word Hindu had an ancient lineage centuries before the British advent. When monotheistic faiths entered India and practiced exclusivity, the term came to be applied to the Sanatana Dharma and its native adherents. Sanatana Dharma is inclusive and respectfully accommodates all the village, jati/kula, regional, and pan-Indian gods and goddesses. The proper equivalent of caste is jati, and brahmins, kshatriyas, vaishyas and sudras are not castes but varnas (categories of social organisation).
The tribunal noted that all Hindus follow one of two schools of law – mitakshara and dayabhaga,and this is the crux of the matter. The tribunal should know that Hindu religious customs were codified into law by the British, and Hindu law is an intrinsic part of the country’s legal framework, which is why we have the Hindu Code Bill and the Hindu Marriages Act. Hence the argument that ‘Hindu’ is not a religion is legally untenable. Second, if the myriad Hindu groups follow either the mitakshara and dayabhaga school of law, it debunks the claim that Hindu is not a distinct religion or people.
The tribunal has asserted that the plethora of jatis (clans claiming descent from a common ancestor) that worship specific village deities (grama devata), clan gods (kula devata), territorial deities (sthan devatas), personal gods (istha devata), or regional deities (such as Jagannath of Puri), all of whom are worshipped with different prayers and rituals, do not comprise the Hindu religion and people. Actually, all divinities in Hindu tradition are linked to the major gods of the pan-Indian pantheon. Hinduism’s greatness lies in not erasing the numerous natal traditions to create a monotheistic edifice with uniformity of worship and custom. To pronounce that there is no Hindu religion or community is a form of iconoclasm as it privileges creeds that are not native to the soil.
It is learnt that the Income-Tax Department is likely to challenge the tribunal’s decision before the High Court. Hindus fighting to retain the tax exemption for the trust must fight for honourable recognition as the native religion and civilisational ethos of India.
NitiCentral, 2 January 2013
http://www.niticentral.com/2013/01/hindu-trust-denied-tax-exemption.html