Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. We are unable to support the view taken by the Department. For the reasons given by the learned advocate for the assessed, with which we are in entire agreement, there is absolutely no ground to say that the trust was not genuine at all merely because there was in their minds a doubt about the genuineness of donations by the donors. A donor may be suspect for a variety of reasons but the trust in the case is beyond pale of any doubt. All the formalities that are necessary to constitute a valid public trust have been performed and there was no infirmity whatsoever in that area. There was a regular trust deed executed and was registered as a public charitable trust. A valid public trust once created is irrevocable by any subsequent act of the author of the trust. The public trust can be created either in writing or oral also. The trust deed clearly pointed out that the trust was an irrevocable trust. If there is any deviation either by the founder of the trust or the trustees from the declared purpose of the trust, that would amount only to a breach of trust and would not detract from the validity or the declaration of the trust and hence the subsequent conduct either of the founder or of the trustees in dealing with the funds of the trust after its creation would not put an end to the trust itself. A trust thus created becomes irrevocable and nothing would nullify it thereafter. This is the law as declared by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Manindra Nath Mukherjee vs. ACED (1983) 140 ITR 476 (Cal). When the original deed of trust was valid, the Calcutta High Court held in this case that supplementary deeds executed granting other benefits to the settlor and his sons would not be effective. Therefore, in this case since the Department had not found the trust deed to be suffering from any infirmity in law, it must be held to be valid and we hold it to be so.

6. In the case of CIT vs. Promod Jain Trust (1971) 81 ITR 604 (Del), the Delhi High Court held that no formal document or other writing was necessary to create a charitable and religious trust. Such a trust could be create by words of mouth as showing an intention to create a charitable or religious trust. If that intention was accompanied with or followed by a formal divesting of ownership of property on the part of the donor and vesting of the same in any other person or even to the donor himself as trustee, the dedication is complete. In this case the settlor had validly created a trust by a document duly registered, which declared his intention very clearly in unequivocal terms and the trust property was settled on the trust and was handed over to the trustees and the trust was made irrevocable, the objects were clearly charitable in nature and, therefore, applying the rule laid down by the Delhi High Court, the assessed trust cannot be said to be a non-genuine trust. In the case before the Delhi High Court the trust was created by a letter. The question arose whether such a trust could be validly created. The Delhi High Court answered the question in the affirmative. The present case before us is much stronger than the case before the Delhi High Court.

7. The Madras High Court in the case of Thanthi Trust vs. ITO (1973) 91 ITR 261 (Mad) held that if a valid and complete dedication to a trust had taken place, there would be no power left in the founder to revoke and no assertion on his part or the subsequent conduct of himself or his descendants contrary to such dedication would have the effect of nullifying it. If the trust had been validly and really created any deviation by the founder of the trust or the trustees from the declared purpose would amount only to a breach of trust and would not detract from the declaration of the trust and hence the subsequent conduct of the founder in dealing with the funds of the trust long after its creation may not put an end to the trust itself. Thus the law on the subject is well settled that a trust validly created and where the dedication is complete, that becomes an irrevocable trust and any act done by the founder or the trustees thereafter would not nullify the effect of the trust but only would amount to a breach of trust and, therefore, even if the donations are held to be non-genuine, spurious or fictitious, that would not make the trust which is validly created and irrevocable, a non-genuine trust. The view taken by the authorities below is therefore, erroneous. We, therefore, hold that the trust is validly created. As we have pointed out the ITO was carried away by what happened elsewhere, which has no relevance to the facts of the issue. The ITO should have discussed the facts relevant to the issue instead of digressing to the facts in other cases all because the trustees happened to be the trustees there also. A misdeed committed by a trustee elsewhere all be it in another trust having the same objects cannot mean that the same was effected here also. Each has to be decided on its own independent facts. It was that confusion that led the ITO to hold that this trust is non-genuine whereas in fact it was not so.