Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

c) The Ld. Assessing Officer has objected to clause 10 of the Trust Deed regarding the termination of the trust. On close reading of this clause it will be found that there is nothing unlawful because it has been mentioned that "the settlor may take appropriate steps in compliance with applicable laws to dissolve the trust. In the event of dissolution of trust procedure in accordance with clause 3 mentioned hereinabove shall be followed". It may be noted that in clause 3 it has been provided that "in the event of dissolution of the trust the assets remaining after the satisfying all debts and liabilities of the trust as on the date of dissolution shall under no circumstances be distributed among the trustees/ settlor, but the same shall be transferred to another charitable trust whose objects are similar to those of the trust and which enjoys the recognition u/s 12A(a) and Sec 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time". As such the clause is fair enough and needs no adverse inference.

19. The AO commented that as such, the application of the trust for registration was not being recommended, observing that when a trust is declared, the founder has no power to revoke, vary or add to it and that in the event of the trust not being able to function in fulfillment of its objects, the entire assets of the trust are to be transferred to any other public charitable institution having similar objects, which was not the case with the assessee trust.

20. To the AO's above comments, the response of the assessee was, inter alia, that each and every object of the trust, as contained in clauses 6.3(a) to 6.3(j) had been specifically explained and it was detailed as to how each object was charitable in nature; that the AO had not made any adverse comment on the functioning of the trust; that the assessee's claim of charity of `50,000 had not been rebutted and it had been accepted that the trust was working and doing charity; that the AO had accepted that the objects of the trust were charitable, since he had not rebutted the assessee's detailed discussion and explanations of each object clause of the trust; that the AO had commented upon the administrative part of the assessee trust; that the AO had observed that in his view, the settler of the assessee trust was having all the powers; that this was not the purview for grant of registration u/s 12A(a) of the Act; that the AO's objection regarding the settler having blanket power to appoint and remove the Secretary did not carry force, since this action was aimed to avoid mismanagement in the trust and to safeguard the compliance of the charitable objects of the trust; that pertinently, the settler was a member of the Board of the trustees of the assessee trust; that there was nothing unusual I.T.A. Nos.5310,5311/Del./2010 (A. Y. : N.A.) about the cause regarding the termination of the trust since clause 3 provided that in the event of dissolution of the trust, the assets of the trust remaining after satisfying of debts and liabilities shall be transferred to another charitable trust whose objects are similar to those of the assessee trust; that para.1.1 of the bye laws of the trust, containing the power of the settler to appoint a new trustee, had been incorporated to maintain the sanctity of the trust and to preempt entry of undesirable elements in the Board, which was also true about the para.3.1 of the bye laws providing for the appointment and removal of Secretary of the settler; that the trust deed did not contain any mention of any decision of the settler being binding on the Board of trustees; that in fact, all decisions were to be taken by the Board of trustees and the settler had no say more than that of an ordinary trustee; that there was no provision of any veto power vesting with the settler; that as per para.3.1 of the bye laws, the chairman of each meeting of the Board would be elected from amongst the trustees present; that the trustee had not compulsorily made the chairman of the meeting; that further, the chairman was not to have a casting vote; and that as such, the Board of the settler was pari passu with the power of the other trustee and he had no special power concerning the running of the trust, that according to clause 3 of the trust deed, the trust was irrevocable.

45. Further, it is seen that as per clause 3 of the original Trust Deed, in the event of dissolution of the trust, the assets remaining after satisfying all the debts and liabilities of the trust as on the date of dissolution shall not be distributed among the trustees/settlor, but the same shall be transferred to another charitable trust, whose objects are similar to those of the assessee trust and which enjoys recognition under section 12A of the I.T. Act, 1961 and exemption under section 80G thereof. This position has remained unchanged in the Supplementary Trust Deed. This clause makes it clear that the settlor cannot usurp the trust properties in the event of its dissolution. The said clause 3 reads as follows:

"In the event of dissolution of the Trust, the assets remaining after satisfying all debts and liabilities of the Trust as on the date of dissolution shall under no circumstances be distributed among the trustees/settlor, but the same shall be transferred to another charitable trust, whose objects are similar to those of the Trust and which enjoys the recognition under section 12A and Section 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961, as amended from time to time."

46. Concerning the case laws relied on by the CIT regarding his objection of legal procedure not having been followed for amending the Trust Deed, it is seen that of the said case laws, i.e., 'Sakti Charities vs. CIT'; 149 ITR 624 (Mad.), 'Thanti Trust vs. ITO', 91 ITR 261 (Mad.) and 'Sri Agasthyar Trust vs. CIT', 236 ITR 23 (SC) deal with situations where the objects of the trusts were sought to be amended. This is not the case herein. Since here, only the I.T.A. Nos.5310,5311/Del./2010 (A. Y. : N.A.) administrative part of the Deed was amended (which remains undisputed) and not the objects, no rights of the general public were adversely affected thereby and hence, no public notice was required to bring about such amendment.