Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. A Division Bench of this court in the first of the assessee's cases relating to its entitlement to be treated as a charitable trust and its income derived from the newspaper business being allowed exemption from tax in the case of CIT v. Thanthi Trust [1982] 137 ITR 735 (Mad) has considered the character of the petitioner's trust created under the trust deed dated March 1, 1954, and the subsequent supplementary trust deed dated July 9, 1957, as also the effect of the judgment of this court in C. S. No. 90 of 1961. The court held that the founder of the trust had created a public charitable trust; the supplemental deed dated June 28, 1961, and the decision of this court in C. S. No. 90 of 1961, create a legal obligation on the trustees to spend the income derived from the trust after defraying the expenses of the newspaper business, for the purposes set out in the Schedule to the decree in P. S. No. 90 of 1961, and therefore, the trust property including the business itself should be taken to be held under a legal obligation for various charitable objects ; that those charitable objects fall under the relief to the poor and education referred to in Section 2(15) of the Act; and that the primary purpose of the trust is to carry out on the charitable objects, and that business is carried on only as a means in the course of the actually carrying out the primary purpose of the trust, and not as an end itself.

3. The court also observed that while the predominant object of the trust is the carrying out of the charitable objects referred to in two of the three categories of charitable purposes referred to in Section 2(15), the carrying on of the business which is actually the property held under trust or other legal obligation is incidental, and the profit resulting from the business can be taken to be a by-product. That decision was rendered on a reference made under the provisions of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70.

4. After that decision was rendered, Section 13(1)(bb) was introduced in the Income-tax Act which remained on the statute book from the year 1977 till April 1, 1984. The assessee's claim for exemption of the income from the newspaper business from tax having been negatived by the Revenue, the petitioner challenged the assessment orders for the assessment years 1979-80 to 1983-84, before this court by way of writ petitions. This court held in the case which is reported as Ttianthi Trust v. Asst. CIT [1995] 213 ITR 626 that in view of the categorical finding recorded by the Division Bench in CIT v. Ttianthi Trust [1982] 137 ITR 735 (Mad) that the primary purpose of the trust was to carry out charitable objects and that the business was carried on as a means in the course of the actual carrying out of the primary purpose of the trust, the requirement of the last portion of Section 13(1)(bb), namely, "unless the business is carried on in the course of the actual carrying out of a primary purpose of the trust or institution" was satisfied by the petitioner. Therefore, Section 13(1)(bb) could not stand in the way of the petitioner claiming the benefit of exemption under Section 11(1) of the Act.

'Moreover, another consequence of the construction canvassed on behalf of the Revenue would be that Section 11, Sub-section (4), would be rendered wholly superfluous and meaningless. Section 11, Sub-section (4), declares that for the purpose of Section 11 "property held under trust" shall include a business undertaking and, therefore, a business can also be held under trust for a charitable purpose and where it is so held, its income would be exempt from tax, provided, of course, the other requisite conditions for exemption are satisfied. It may be pointed out that Section 11, Sub-section (4), where it provides that a business may also be property held under trust, does not bring about any change in the law because even prior to the enactment of that provision, it was held by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the Tribune's case [1939J. 7 ITR 415, that property in the corresponding Section 4(3)(i) of the Act of 1922 included business and this principle was affirmed by the pronouncements of this court in J. K. Trust v. CIT [1957] 32 ITR 535 and C7T v. P. Krishna Warriar [1964] 53 ITR 176. Section 11, Sub-section (4), merely gave statutory recognition to this principle. Now, Section 13(1)(bb), introduced in the Act of 1961 with effect from April 1, 1977, provides that in the case of a charitable trust or institution for the relief of the poor, education or medical relief which carries on any business, income derived from such business would not be exempt from tax unless the business is carried on in the course of the actual carrying out of a primary purpose of the trust or institution. Where, therefore, there is a charitable trust or institution falling within any of the first three categories of charitable purpose set out in sec-tion 2, Clause (15), and it carries on business which is held by it under trust for its charitable purpose, income from such business would not be exempt by reason of Section 13(1)(bb). Section 11, Sub-section (4), would, therefore, have no application in the case of a charitable trust or institution falling within any of the first three heads of "Charitable purpose". Similarly, on the construction contended for on behalf of the Revenue, it would have no applicability also in the case of a charitable trust or institution falling under the last head of "Charitable purpose" because according to the contention of the Revenue, even if a business is held under trust by a charitable trust or institution for promotion of an object of general public utility, income from such business would not be exempt since the purpose would cease to be charitable. The construction contended for on behalf of the Revenue would thus have the effect of rendering Section 11, Sub-section (4), totally redundant after the enactment of Section 13(1)(bb). We do not think we can accept such a construction which renders a provision of the Act superfluous and reduces it to silence. If there is one rule of interpretation more well-settled than any other, it is that if the language of a statutory provision is ambiguous and capable of two constructions, that construction must be adopted which will give meaning and effect to the other provisions of the enactment rather than that which will give none. The construction which we are placing on Section 2, Clause (15), leaves a certain area of operation to Section 11, Sub-section (4), notwithstanding the enactment of Section 13(1)(bb) and we must, therefore, in any event, prefer that construction to the one submitted on behalf of the Revenue."