Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

25. The trust shall be revocable at the discretion of the council and the trustees shall hold their office at its pleasure.

27. All immovable property as soon as acquired by Satsang, either as a present or offering, shall be conveyed in the name of the "Radhaswami Trust. "

3. A trust deed was executed by certain members of the central council some time in October, 1904. The objects of the trust were ; "The trustees named above or those that may be appointed hereafter to succeed them, all of whom will hereafter be called trustees, shall collect, preserve, administer, and if necessary, alienate the properties, movable or immovable, that have been or may hereafter be dedicated to the supreme being, Radhaswami Dayal, or that may be acquired for or presented to the Radhaswami Satsang and its branches, in accordance with such directions as may, from time to time, be issued in this behalf by the said council or the Sant Satguru for the time being, if any, who is recognised as the representative of the supreme being, Radhaswami Dayal, and as such is the sole master of all movable and immovable properties of the aforesaid Satsang, provided that Samadhis and places of public worship of the Radhaswami Satsang shall at no time be alienated. By clause relating to bye-laws it was provided as follows :

"1. Irrespective of what is prescribed by the following rules, all mandates of the Sant Satguru of the time regarding the disposal of the movable and immovable properties of the Satsang and its branches or other matters connected with the trust, shall be carried out by the trustees.

2. The trust shall be revocable at the direction of the council and the trustees shall hold their office at its pleasure.

3. All immovable properties, as soon as acquired by the aforesaid Satsang either as presents or offerings or by purchase, or otherwise, shall be forthwith conveyed in the name of the trustees."

17. We propose to examine the exemption claimed under Section 12 first. We have already extracted Section 12. A bare reading of this provision indicates that it applies only to voluntary contributions, and not to any other type of income. In the present case, we are not concerned with voluntary contributions.. Thus, Section 12 is out of the way.

18. Now, turning to Section 11, the claim is made under Section 11(1)(a), for, it is contended that the income is derived from properties held under a trust for a religious purpose. Expln. 7 to Section 13 states that for purposes of Section 11, Sections 12, 12A and 13 the word "trust " includes any other legal obligation. We have seen that the Tribunal has held that the assesses was under a legal obligation to apply the income solely for religious purposes. It rightly examined the exemption claimed by the assessee from the standpoint of the legal obligation, for, the decision in the case of Patel Chhotabhai v. Jnan Chandra Basak, AIR 1935 PC 97, clearly lays down that in spite of the tenets of the faith of Radhaswami Satsang, the deed constituting the central council and the trust deed, no trust came into existence, as the Sant Satguru for the time being was the sole master of the movable and immovable properties of the Satsang, and the trust deed was revocable at the discretion of the council. It also held that the regulations relating to the central council and the provisions of the so-called trust deed were consistent with the desire on the part of the Sant Satguru to obtain the assistance of some of the followers in the management of the affairs of the Satsang.

(ii) it, in any way, gives the transferor a right to reassume power directly or indirectly over the whole or any part of the income or-assets ;

(b) ' transfer ' includes any settlement, trust, covenant, agreement or arrangement. "

22. It will be noticed that Section 63 contains an inclusive definition of the word " transfer ". Now, by virtue of Expln, 1 to Section 13, a trust includes a legal obligation. Thus, in cases where an exemption under Section 11 is claimed on the ground of the existence of a legal obligation wholly for religious purposes, it has to be examined whether the legal obligation is revocable. Now, Patel Chhotabhai's case, AIR 1935 PC 97, establishes that all the properties of theRadhaswaini Satsang belonged to Sant Satguru, and he was its supreme master. Assuming, that by virtue of para. 9 of the deed of June, 1904, constituting the central council, the properties vested in Radhaswami Trust, as para. 25 in the same deed makes the trust revocable at the discretion of the council, the legal obligation was revocable at the discretion of the central council. Section 63(a)(ii) would come into operation at once, and Section 61 would be attracted, and as a result the income would become chargeable in the hands of the transferor. Now, who was the transferor at the time when the deed was executed? The Privy Council in Patel Chhotabhai's case, AIR 1935 PC 97, has held that the Sant Satguru was the sole master of the movable and immovable properties of the Satsang, and the Sant Satguru, even after the execution of the deed constituting the central council, had no intention to alter his position as Sant Satguru or to divest himself of the control of the property. It has been seen that it was also held that the regulations relating to the central council and the provisions of the so-called trust deed were consistent with the desire on the part of the Sant Satguru to obtain the assistance of some of his followers. Thus, the real transferor was the Sant Satguru. Now, the Sant Satguru, as has been held by the Privy Council, was not bound to apply the properties of the Satsang for religious purposes only. We shall demonstrate hereunder that the position is the same taking the council to be the transferor. Counsel for the assessee urged that as the Sant Satguru was not there, the central council had to apply the properties only for the religious purposes as is apparent from the deed of June, 1904. We think that this is not so. The mere fact that there is no Sant Satguru at the present moment does not absolve the central council for holding the properties for each and every one of the purposes set out in the deed constituting it. Their position, even in the absence of Sant Satguru, is only as manager of the Sant Satguru, who may hereinafter be chosen. The legal obligation, therefore, does not extend only for holding it for the purposes of furtherance of the object of the Satsang, but also for the benefit of the Sant Satguru. Considering the tenets of the faith which makes the Sant Satguru paramount and his dictates having overriding effect, the properties cannot be said to be held by the central council exclusively for religious purposes, as they held the properties and the income also for the benefit of the Sant Satguru, who may hereinafter subsequently appear. Thus, the legal obligation for which the properties are held arc manifold. Now in Dharmaposhanam Co. v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 463 (SC), it has been held that in order to decide as to whether a trust is for a charitable purpose, one must refer to all the object for which the trust has been brought into existence, and not only to the activity which is actually conducted. The decision in CIT v. Dhannodayam Co. [1977] 109 ITR 527 (SC), was explained as being applicable to cases where the other objects in the memorandum of association are not intended to be undertaken. In the present case, having regard to the tenets of faith of Radhaswami Satsang, it is not possible to exclude the Satguru, as the entire faith is founded on this central figure, and its followers, the central council and the trustees are bound to obey the commands of the Sant Satguru, which may possibly not be of a wholly religious nature. It is idle to contend that the Sant Satguru would never give directions, which are not of a religious nature, for, he may or may not do so.