Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. The ld. counsel argued that since the membership of the assesscc trust is open to the public without any discrimination, it cannot be said that the assessee trust does not advance object of General Public Utility. In Support of this contention, reliance is placed on the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of CITv. Paramhans Ashram Trust [ 1993] 203 ITR 711.

19. The ld. counsel pressed into service an array of rulings of various High Courts and the Apex Court in support of his contentions that the objects of the assessee trust.are charitable in nature. These decisions are as under:

(a) CITv. Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust [1955] 27 ITR 279 (Bom.)
(b) CITv. Andhra Chamber of Commerce[1965] 55 ITR 722 (SC)
(c) CITv. Ootacamund Gymkhana Club Case (supra)
(d) Addl. CITv. Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC)
(e) Bar Council of Ut tar Prudes hv. C/T[1983] 143 ITR 584" (All.)
(f) Andhra Pradesh Riding Club's case (supra)
(g) Cochin Chamber of Commerce & Industry v. CIT[1994] 205 ITR 536 (Ker.)

20. The ld. counsel next argued that once registration has been allowed by the CIT under section 12A, the Assessing Officer is not entitled to deny the exemption under section 11 on the ground that the objects of the trust are not charitable. Reliance is placed on the following decisions :

(1) Khemraj Nemichand Shrishrimal Charitable Trust v. CIT[1998] 231 ITR43(MP) (2) CITv. I.T.I. Employees Death & Superannuation Relief Fund[1998] 234 ITR 308 (Kar.) (3) Nachimuthu Industrial Association v. CIT [1999] 235 ITR 190 (SC) (4) CWT v. Gangabai Charities [1999] 236 ITR 735 (Mad.)"
(5) Hyderabad Race Club V.CWT [1997] 223 ITR 703 (SC)

23. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions made before us. We have also carefully gone through the array of judicial decisions of various High Courts and the Apex Court cited by the learned representatives of both sides before us. At the outset, we note that the tax authorities have treated the assessees trust as a mutual society bringing to tax interest income as well as club fees and excluding the subscription and contribution of the members from the purview of taxation. The assessee trust formed for the purpose of promotion of sports and games which has been conducting tournaments and coaching camps for the participants and which has been sanctioned substantial grants-in-aid by the Govt. of India for construction of sports stadium cannot be treated as a mutual concern. It is to be noted that the Memorandum of Association of the assessee trust provides that the surplus funds on dissolution of the society would not be distributed amongst the members but the same would be utilised for the charitable objects as enumerated in the trust deed. On these facts the conclusions of the tax authorities that the assessee trust is a mutual concern is factually and legally unsustainable.

26. Regarding the two decisions cited by the ld. D.R. viz. Fifth Generation Education Society's case (supra) and Shantagauri Ramniklal Trust's case (supra), we find that both these decisions rather support the view being taken by us here and the reliance placed by the learned DR is entirely misconceived. In Shantaigauri Ramniklal Trust's case (supra) the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that whenever application is made for registration under section 12A, it is for the CIT to make an inquiry and reach conclusion regarding the charitable nature of the assessee trust. Obviously once the conclusion has been reached by the CIT that the objects of the trust are charitable and the CIT proceeds to register the trust, the Assessing Officer is precluded from carrying out the same exercise again and deny the claim of exemption under section 11.