Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Aggrieved by this the assessee went in appeal before the First Appellate Authority. Before whom the following submissions were made:-

2. Facts "That the assessee Trust was set up on 30th December, 2002 to carry out various charitable/ spiritual/ religious objects as set out in the Trust Deed. The Trust during the year under appeal was mainly involved in the following activities:
a. Imparting of spiritual education to the poor and masses of all castes, religion and creed for upliftment of mankind.
c.For the betterment of the Dawoodi Bohra community to give and take Qardan Hasana accordingly to Farma of Qurane Majid.
d.To arrange for religious education and to establish Madarsa and such organization.
e.To assist/help to the needy people for religious activities. f.To carry out all religious activities according to Shariat and direction of Shariat-e-Mohammediyah for the prosperity of the Dawoodi Bohra community."

7.2. Considering the objects referring to para 18 of the said decision it was submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court took note that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was a public religious trust. Considering this finding on record it was submitted the Apex Court took note of the fact that the Hon'ble High Court considering the appeal filed before it came to the conclusion that whether the respondent trust was "a religious trust" or "a charitable trust" was a question of fact and since it has been positively answered by the last fact finding authority i.e Tribunal, the Hon'ble High Court came to the conclusion that it could not be interfered with in appeal u/s 260-A of the Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in these circumstances it was submitted came to the conclusion that the High Court ought not to have declined to answer the questions. Referring to para 20 of the said judgement it was pointed out that the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the question of law and question of fact are intricately entwined, sometimes to the extent of blurring the domains in which they ought to be considered and therefore, the issue requires a cautious consideration. Their Lordships held it was submitted that the question where the legal effect of proven facts is intrinsically in appeal has to be differentiated from the question where a finding of fact is only assailed has to be considered carefully. Briefly carrying us through the intervening paras of the said judgement the Ld. AR submitted that after referring to various decisions relied before the Apex Court in para 26 their Lordships came to the conclusion that determination of nature of trust whether it is wholly religious or wholly charitable or whether both charitable and religious under the Act is not a question of fact and requires examination of legal effects of the proven facts and documents and for that implications of the objects of the trust as contained in the trust deed need be considered. It was emphasized that their Lordships held that it is only the objects of a trust in the trust deed which would govern its right of exemption u/s 11 or 12 of the Act. For the said purpose it was contended their Lordships held it is only the objects in the back drop of fiscal jurisprudence which would illuminate the purpose behind creation or establishment of the trust for either religious or charitable or both religious and charitable purposes. In these circumstances it was submitted it has been held that the Hon'ble High Court had erred in refusing to interfere with the observations of the Tribunal in respect of the character of the trust. Thereafter the Lordship proceeded to examine the question themselves. 7.3. Referring to paras 28 & 29 of the said judgement it was submitted that their Lordships held that the objects of the trust in the facts of that case were not indicative of a wholly religious purpose but were collectively indicative of both charitable and religious purposes. Their Lordships went on to hold that it is expedient to comprehend the objects of the respondent-trust with reference to the construction of the expressions "charitable purpose" and "religious purpose". The phrase charitable purpose their Lordships said is expansive and inclusive. The term as defined u/s 2(15) of the Act was considered and it was held that the expression "charitable" purpose has been defined by way of an inclusive definition so as to include relief to the poor, education, medical relief and advancement of any other object of general public utility. A catena of decisions of the Apex Court it was held have interpreted the said provision and especially the expression any other object of general public utility" which is of the widest connotation. Inviting attention to para 31 of the said judgement it was submitted that their Lordships took cognizance of the following decisions:- i). CIT vs Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers' Assn; ii) Thiagarajar Charities vs CIT (1997) 4 SCC 724 and observed that if the primary purpose or predominant object of a trust is to promote the welfare of the general public the purpose would be charitable purpose. Relying on the said judgement addressing the objects of the assessee it was further submitted that the Apex Court further held that if the primary or predominant object of an institution is charitable, any other object which might not be charitable but which is ancillary or incidental to the dominant purpose, would not prevent the institution from being a valid charitable trust.