Devan Ramachandran, J.

1. Though we have heard Sri.Jose Joseph – learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri.Anil D.Nair, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Aravind Sreekumar – learned counsel for the respondent, at length, we find no reason to admit this Appeal, because no substantial question of law is involved, or called into question.

2. We will state our reasons for saying as afore presently.

3. When the respondent applied for exemption under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short), asserting themselves to be engaged only in charitable activities, the same was rejected by the appellant-Commissioner,  through  Annexure  A order, holding that, though two of their activities, namely, ‘Solar Panel Installation Unit’ and ‘Kexcon Neethi Medical Stores’, appear to be in consonance and in tune with their main objects, the third activity of deploying ex- servicemen as security guards and receiving payments towards such services, is only a business activity. He thus concluded that this is not a charitable activity as per Section 2(15) of the ‘Act’.

4. The respondent - assessee took up the matter in Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (‘ITAT’); and the said Tribunal issued Annexure B order, holding unequivocally that, since the respondent was established for the economic upliftment of the ex-servicemen and their families, and because the selling of medicines to the public is a relief to the poor, their activities can only be termed as ‘charitable activities’; thus being entitled to the registration sought under Section 12AA of the ‘Act’.

5. The appellant-Commissioner is in Appeal before us, against the afore finding.

6. It is indubitable that the questions placed before us for our consideration are essentially in the realm of facts. There is no dispute as to the legal issues involved; but the controversy solely revolves around the question whether, on facts, the respondent is engaged in charitable activities.

7. Before we evaluate the issues any further, we must record the submission of Sri.Anil D.Nair – learned Senior Counsel, that there is no forensic bar against his client being granted registration under Section 12AA of the ‘Act’, even assuming that some of their activities are not charitable in nature – without admitting it in any manner; but that, the Authorities appear to have taken such a stand incorrectly.

8. On the facts, we notice that the assertion of the respondent is that they provide rehabilitation to their own members - who are all ex-servicemen, and their families; and that the income that they generate through the employment of such persons, as also that from the ‘Solar Panel Installation Unit’ and ‘Kexcon Neethi Medical Stores’, is used solely for their upliftment and nothing else, after reserving an exiguous amount, less than 4%, for their administrative and other charges.

9. The specific argument of Sri.Anil D.Nair – learned Senior Counsel, is that the activities of the assessee are in no manner profitable in nature and that they reserve nothing at all in such manner, except for the aforesaid percentile for administrative uses, including salary to their employees.

10. However, Sri.Jose Joseph – learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that, as has been correctly found by the Commissioner, the lion's share of the income generated by the assessee is from their activity of deploying ex- servicemen as security guards and receiving payments for such; and hence that, it can only be construed as a business activity. He pointed out that, even the Commissioner has held that the other two activities, namely, the running of the ‘Solar Panel Installation Unit’ and the ‘Neethi Medical Stores’, are in consonance with the basic objectives of the assessee; but that, when it comes to the generation of income by deploying ex-servicemen for security/guard duty, it partakes the character of business, therefore, falling within the mischief of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the ‘Act’.

11. We have given the afore submissions of Sri.Jose Joseph great amount of thought.

12. When we examine the order of the Commissioner, it is interesting that the said Authority finds that the activities carried on by the respondent – Assessee, in running their “Solar Panel Installation unit and Kexcon Neethi Medical Stores to be in consonance and in tune with the main objects.” (sic). However, when it came to the generation of income, by deploying ex-servicemen as security guards, the finding goes to the contrary, saying that this is a ‘business activity’.

13. It is well settled, without requirement for us to expatiate, that, when it comes to the evaluation of the factual question posed, what is relevant is the manner in which the income of the assessee is put to use. This, certainly, will require an incisive assessment of their objectives, as available in their Memorandum of Association; and we notice that the learned ‘ITAT’ has done so.

14. It is equally compelling that, even in Annexure A, the Commissioner found factually that the net profit ratio of the respondent – assessee, is a mere 3.79% for the Financial Year 2020-21 and 3.37% for the Financial Year 2021-22. Obviously, when these figures are not in contest, the indubitable presumption can only be that the respondent is not acting in profit, but only for the purposes as are enumerated in their Memorandum of Association.

15. That said, we are fully aware that the submissions of Sri.Jose Joseph are with a technical tenor, manifest when he asserts that the object of ‘General Public Utility’ will cease to be a charitable purpose, if it involves the carrying of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business. He makes his submission, relying upon the proviso to Section 2(15) of the 'Act'.

16. We have little doubt that every case will have to be assessed on the singular facts, as are presented.

17. In this particular matter, the assessee has declared, as has been found by the Commissioner and also the ‘ITAT’ concurrently, that their income is being generated through three sources, but used for the purposes of their own members, with a small amount being left to defray their administrative and other expenses.

18. The argument of the appellant is that, if the generation of the income is by business, it should be deemed to be not a charitable purpose.

19. We are afraid that we cannot offer our approval to the afore argument for the reason that, every mode of generation of income by the respondent – assessee is surely through activities that can possibly be construed to be business - be that the ‘Solar Panel Installation Unit’ or the ‘Neethi Medical Stores’. When the Commissioner has found that those two align with the objectives of the respondent, we fail to fathom how he then takes the view that the third mode  of  generation  of  income,  namely,  by obtaining  charges  for  deployment  of ex-servicemen as security guards, would stand out of its purlieus.

20. We see that the learned ‘ITAT’ has also dealt with these issues of fact in the same manner, to finally hold that the activities of the respondent are charitable in nature.

21. As long as the facts as afore remain undisturbed, we have little doubt that our intervention in this case becomes unnecessary.

                  This Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.