Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. The learned Departmental Representative, on the, other hand, invited our attention to the decision of the Honble Kerala High Court in the case of Agappa Child Centre v. CIT (supra), in which the assessee-trust was held not eligible for exemption under section 13(1)(c). In that case, a refrigerator purchased by the assessee-trust was placed at the residence of the managing-trustee and was used by him and so it was held by the Honble Kerala High Court that the assessee was not entitled for exemption under section 11. The learned Departmental Representative stressed that the case of the assessee before us is of a far worse hue than that of the assessee considered by the Honble Kerala High Court. In that case, it was a mere refrigerator that was used by the managing trustee. In the case before us, the learned Departmental Representative argued, it is not a simple case of the refrigerator, but many other electrical equipments that were used for the benefit of the chairman. Apart from that, funds of the society to the tune of about Rs. 4.36 lakhs were expended on the renovation of the said guest-house, and as the period of lease is only for about two years, the benefit of the renovation went to the trustee-owners. He also pointed out that there were other expenses like payments to gardener, driver, electricity charges, etc., which were incurred by the assessee-trust only to benefit the chairman of the assessee-society. So, it is pleaded that the sins of the assessee-society are for darker than those of the trust considered by the Honble Kerala High Court in the decision mentioned above. The learned Departmental Representative also pleaded that all the other cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee are distinguishable on facts.

1. Travelling expenses 47,048

2. Telephone expenses 13,475 The assessee is aggrieved by these disallowances. Regarding travelling expenses, the Commissioner (Appeals) discussed the issue as under :

"14(a). The next issue is the addition of Rs. 95,738 out of the. claim of travelling and conveyance of Rs. 1,03,080. On an examination of the details, the assessing officer found that the disallowed amount related to 9 trips by the trustees and the chairman. Most of the journeys were between Madras and Trivandrum touching Mavelikkara, one of them charges for the air ticket of two trustees from Singapore to Madras of Rs. 41,744. The trip from Singapore to Madras was claimed as relating to the Annual General Body Meeting of the society at Madras. The other were stated to be for supervising the charitable activities at Mavelikkara and to attend the office at Trivandrum. The assessing officer found that the visit of the two trustees permanently residing at Singapore could be for meeting their own relatives and is not meant for furthering the interests of the society. Regarding the trips to Trivandrum he felt that the chairmans mother is staying alone at Trivandrum and is being looked after by aayas and, therefore, has to be visited by him frequently. Therefore, all these expenses were held to be unrelated to the purpose of the trust and was disallowed.
14(c) I have considered the rival contentions. There is evidence for the trustees meeting their own expenses from individual funds. It is also shown that they have sufficient individual resources. However, meeting the expenses of the journey of two trustees from Singapore to Madras cannot be said to be for charitable purposes. The dire necessity of incurring such expenditure is not explained. Moreover, charitable activities abroad is not the objective of the trust. Similarly, the expenditure of Rs. 2,304 for the journey from Madras to Palghat also appears unrelated to the activity of the trust as it has not projects in that area. Therefore, the disallowance of the two sums of Rs. 41,744 and Rs. 2,304 are upheld. The other addition on this account are deleted."