Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2.9 It was also submitted that all the activities of the trust constitute charitable purpose within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act. This submission has been rejected by mentioning that the activities may be charitable purpose but if they are not in accordance with the objects of the trust, benefit under sections 11 and 12 cannot be granted. These benefits are subject to the conditions of registration. The assessee-trust was made aware at that time that the claim of exemption cannot be made merely on the registration granted u/s 12A(a), but it depends upon fulfillment of conditions mentioned in sections 11, 12, 12A and 13 of the Act. Section 12A(3) contains the conditions that -(i) objects of the trust are charitable, and (ii) the activities are carried out in accordance with objects of the trust. If, the activities exceed the objects, the registration does not remain valid and in such a situation the assessee looses the benefit of exemption under sections 11 and 12.

5.7 The main question before the Hon'ble Court in the case of Sakthi Charities (supra) was-whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee-trust as originally constituted could not be regarded as a charitable trust entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act? Briefly, the facts are that the trust was established on 25.06.1968 with a view to carry out various objects. The assessee applied for approval u/s 80G(5). The Commissioner objected to certain objects, as a consequence of which the trustees executed a rectification deed on 31.01.1969 removing the offending clauses in the objects. Thereafter, the AO granted exemption u/s 11 read with section 80G by an order passed on 04.03.1969. In a subsequent assessment, the AO took an objection that certain clauses which were omitted did not constitute charitable purpose and that subsequent rectification deed was not valid, therefore, he refused to grant the relief. The Hon'ble Court came to the conclusion that the trust deed, as it originally existed, had both charitable and non-charitable objects. The trust deed did not grant any authority to the trustees to alter the objects. The well-established law on the issue is that once a valid trust has been created, even the founder of the trust cannot make any change in the objects. Thus, the deleting of some of the objects was not valid. It has also been held that even if it is assumed that the district court is empowered to delete the offending clauses, it cannot do so retrospectively. Accordingly, the question was answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.

6. We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us. We have already held that the trustees have exceeded the mandate given to them under the objects mentioned in the Will for carrying out the two objects regarding propagation of Sanskrit and ayurvedic system of medicines. However, it is also a fact that they are carrying on charitable purpose when medical relief is provided through allopathic system of medicine. The trustees have no authority to suo motu amend the objects as held in the case of Sakthi Charities. At the same time, the facts of the case do not correspond with the facts of Aurolab Trust as that assessee was not carrying out any charitable activities and had pursued only incidental objects of carrying on business. The observations of the Hon'ble Court in the case of Allahabad Agricultural Institute (supra) thus pose a problem for grant of deduction u/s 11(1)(a) as it has been mentioned that even when registration is in force, if the objects carried out are not within the scope of objects on the basis of which registration was granted, the registration will cease to have effect. In this connection, the case of the ld. counsel is that primarily this case deals with stay of demand and the observations were made in the context that the assessee had to show that there was prima facie error in the finding of the AO. However, he has not been able to show any contrary observation or decision. Further, we do not see how the decision in the case of S. RM. M. CT. M. Tiruppani Trust (supra) helps the case of the assessee as no case was made out that setting up of the hospital was not one of the main objects. On the basis of the cases cited before us, it can be said that the income and expenditure in respect of medical relief through allopathic treatment are beyond the scope of the objects. Therefore, they will have to be segregated as they do not fall within the objects of the institution. We are aware that the decision in the case of Allahabad Agricultural Institute (supra) was decided on a different point, but the fact remains that the Hon'ble Court mentioned at length that the income applied to objects other than the permitted objects cannot be deducted as the basis of registration ceases to exist. Since we are relying on this judgment, it will be appropriate to reproduce the contents of placitum 10 on page 119 of the report, which reads as under:-