9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent-association's income qualifies for exemption under section 11 read with section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act. 2. Whether the income derived from the association's coal business is exempt under section 11. 3. Whether other income earned by the association during the assessment year is exempt from tax. 4. Whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had the authority to exempt the entire income of the assessee despite partial exemption claimed before the Income-tax Officer. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Exemption of Income Under Section 11 Read with Section 2(15): The primary issue is whether the respondent-association qualifies as a trust for charitable purposes under section 11 read with section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act. The respondent, M/s. Ahmedabad Mill Owners Association, is a commercial association not registered under the Co-operative Societies Act or the Societies Registration Act, and its legal character is that of an association of persons. The association's rules and regulations (annexure "D") govern its administration. The association's income for the year 1963 included interest on securities, property income, business income, and income from other sources. The Tribunal had previously interpreted the expression "charitable purpose" in section 2(15) and concluded that the condition regarding non-involvement in profit-making activities refers to the "object" of the trust, not the "advancement" of that object. However, recent Supreme Court decisions (Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Indian Chamber of Commerce v. Commissioner of Income-tax) clarified that carrying on an activity for profit disqualifies an entity from exemption under section 11 if the purpose is general public utility. 2. Exemption of Income from Coal Business: The association's coal business involved distributing coal to various mills during a period of coal shortage. Initially, the association charged 50 np. per metric tonne for its services and refunded any surplus to the mills. From April 1, 1963, a new scheme involved middlemen who charged 98 nps. per metric tonne, out of which 19 np. was reimbursed to the association. This scheme lasted for nine months, resulting in a net profit of Rs. 54,023. From January 1, 1964, the association charged 7 np. per metric tonne directly from the mills and refunded any surplus. The Tribunal found that the association's coal business income was not taxable, interpreting "charitable purpose" to exclude activities for profit. However, the Supreme Court's decisions clarified that carrying on a business for profit disqualifies an entity from exemption under section 11 if the purpose is general public utility. 3. Exemption of Other Income: The Tribunal exempted the entire income of the association for the accounting year, including income from sources other than the coal business. The revenue contended that only the income from coal business should be taxable, while the Tribunal held that the entire income was exempt under section 11 read with section 2(15). 4. Authority of Appellate Assistant Commissioner: The fourth issue concerns whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had the authority to exempt the entire income of the assessee despite the assessee initially claiming partial exemption before the Income-tax Officer. The Tribunal confirmed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's authority to exempt the entire income, considering the broader interpretation of "charitable purpose." Conclusion: The court concluded that the respondent-association does not qualify for the exemption under section 11 due to its mixed purposes, including non-charitable objectives. The objects of the association, as outlined in rule 3, include both charitable and non-charitable purposes, and the managing committee has wide discretion to apply the funds for any of these objects. Therefore, the association's income, including that from the coal business, is not exempt under section 11. The court also held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had the authority to exempt the entire income of the assessee, but this was moot given the association's disqualification from exemption.
|
