Case: Dharmaposhanam Co. Kerala Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kerala

The appellant is the Dharmaposhana Company, Irinjalakuda. It is an association constituted under a licence issued in January, 1931, by the then Government of Cochin and registered with limited liability under section 26(1) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, as applied to Cochin. The appellant was governed by a memorandum of association, clause 3 of which provided :3. The objects of the company are :(a) To raise funds by conducting kuries with company as foreman, receiving donations and subscriptions, by lending money on interest and by such other means as the company deem fit(b) To do the needful for the promotion of charity, education, industries, etc., and public good(c) For carrying on the business of the company and for the advancement of the purpose mentioned above in so far as is appropriate, to construct buildings or to purchase or take on lease or for hire movable or immovable properties(d) To encourage others to form other institution with the purpose of acting in accordance with the objects of the company(e) To do all such things as are conducive to the fulfilment of the above objects(f) To lend money on interest to one or more solvent persons individually or severally on the security of ornaments, landed properties or other forms of security fixed by the directors and to borrow money to meet the needs of the company and to run other industriesArticle 58 of the articles of association read :The profit of the company shall not be divided among the members. The profit left after meeting the expenses of the company will be utilised for promoting education, industry, social welfare and such other purposes of common good as are resolved by the generalg the assessment years 1962-63 to 1965-66, the appellant derived income from property, money-lending and business in kuries or chit funds. The assessee claimed exemption from tax of the income from kuries and money-lending under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with varrying success before the income-tax authorities. It is sufficient to point out that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to exemption. At the instance of the appellant, the Tribunal made a reference to the High Court for its opinion on the following question of law :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income of the assessee for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1965-66 was exempt under the provisions of section 11 of the Income-tax Act ?On June 7, 1965, the appellant made certain alterations in its memorandum of association and its articles of association. Sub-clauses (b) and (f) of clause 3 of the memorandum now read :(b) To do the needful for the promotion of charity, education, medical relief and other matters of public good(f) To lend money in the security of ornaments, landed property or on such other securities, as determined by the directors, or on the personal securities of one or more solvent person or persons and also to borrow funds for the purposes of the companyThe amended article 58 of the articles of association now provided :The profit of company shall not be divided among the members. The profit left after meeting the expenses of the company will be utilised for purposes of common good like charity, education and medical relief as are resolved by the general meetingThe appellant pressed its claim for exemption under section 11 of the Act before the income-tax authorities for the assessments years 1966- 67 to 1968-69 also, and the claim was allowed by the Tribunal in view of the aforesaid alterations. At the instance of the income-tax department, the Tribunal referred a question of law to the High Court for the three assessment years in terms identical with the question referred for the earlier assessment years. By its judgment dated June 12, 1974, the High Court answered the question referred for the several assessment years in the negative and in favour of the income- tax department.

Court's reasoning:
On a consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, the position appears to be this. The appellant can succeed in its claim to exemption under section 11(1)(a) of the Act if the income from the business of conducting kuries and of money-lending can be said to be income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable purposes. It is well settled that business is property with the meaning of section 11(1)(a) :There can be little doubt that when sub-clause (a) of clause 3 of the memorandum says :To raise funds by conducting kuries, with company as foreman, receiving donations and subscriptions by lending money on interest and by such other means as the company deem fit, it refers to powers conferred on the appellant to raise money in aid of, and for the purpose of accomplishing, the objects mentioned in sub-clause (b) of clause 3 of the memorandum. Up to June 6, 1965, sub-clause (b) read :To do the needful for the promotion of charity, education, industries, etc., and public goodCan all the purposes mentioned in sub-clause (b) be described as charitable purposes ? Section 2(15) of the Act defines the expression charitable purpose as including relief of the poor, education, medical relief and the advancement of any other object of general public utility not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit. Two objects in sub-clause (b) of clause 3 of the memorandum need to be considered, industries and public good. As regards the latter, the decision on what should be the purposes of common good was left to the general meeting by articles 58 of the articles of association. Having regard to the context in which these words appear in the memorandum and the articles, they must evidently be referred to the residual general head in the definition in section 2(15) of the Act, that is say, the advancement of any other object of general public utility .......... But this head is qualified by the restrictive words not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit. The operation of an industry ordinarily envisages a profit- making activity, and so far as the advancement of public good is concerned, it is open to the appellant to pursue a profit making activity in the course of carrying out that purpose, which of course depends on the nature and purpose of the public good. Nowhere do we find in the material before us any limiting provision that if the appellant carries on any activity in the course of actually carrying out those purposes of the trust it should refrain from adopting and pursuing a profit making activity. In Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1975] 101 ITR 234  , 243 (SC), Khanna and Gupta JJ., dealing with a case in which the assessee carried on a business in the course of the actual carrying out of a primary purpose of the trust, rejected the claim to exemption and declared :The fact that the appellant trust is engaged in the business of printing and publication of newspaper ans journals and the further fact that the aforesaid activity yields or is one likely to yield profit and there are no restrictions on the appellant-trust earning profits in the course of its business would go to show that the purpose of the appellant-trust does not satisfy the requirement that it should be one not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit...... Ordinarily, profit motive is a normal incident of business activity and if the activity of a consists of carrying on of a business and there are no restrictions on its making profit, the court would be well justified in assuming in the absence of some indication to the contrary that the object of the trust involves the carrying on of an activity for profitConsequently, the object still falls under the residual general head mentioned in section 2(15). The same considerations apply, and the same conclusion follows, as under the original provisions of the memorandum and articles of association.Great reliance has been placed on behalf of the appellant on Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dharmodayam co. [1977] 109 ITR 527 (SC) and it has been seriously urged that the decision of this court in that case concludes the point raised in these appeals. We find it not possible to accept this. In that case, the income derived by the assessee from kuries was held by this court to be exempt under section 11(1)(a) of the Act, but the decision proceeded almmost entirely on the assumption that the Kerala High Court had found in Dharmodayam Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1962]45 ITR 478   (Ker), in a case between the same parties, that the Kuries business was itself held under trust for charitable purpose and from that the court inferred that the business activity was not undertaken by the assessee in order to advance any object of general public untility. No such finding has been rendered by anny High Court in a case to which the appellant is a party. It will be noticed that the court cautioned in its judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dharmodayam Co.[1977] 109 ITR 527 (SC) that the decision was strictly liimited to the facts of that caseWe do not agree. Whether a trust is for charitable purposes falls to be determined by reference to all the objects for which the trust has been brought into existence. See Tennent Plays Lid. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue [1948] 30 TC 107 (CA) and Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and wales v. Attorney-General and commissioner of Inland Revenue [1971] 47 TC 321 (CA). In Rex v. special Commissioner of inncome Tax [1922] 8 TC 286 (CA), it was pointed out by the court of Appeal in England that if the settlor reserves to himself the power of appointment under which he might appoint to non-charitable purposes, the trust cannot claim exemption even though the power of appointment is in fact exercised in favour of a charitable object. It wouuld be a different can where one or more of the objects mentioned in the memorandum of association, although included therein, were never intended to be undertaken. If there is evidence pointing to that conclusion, clearly the court will ignore the object and proceed to consider the case as if it did not exist in the memorandum. In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dharmodayam Co. [1977] 109 ITR 527 (SC), it was that basis on which this court proceeded when it observed that the assessee had never engaged itself in any industry or in any other activity of public interest.On the aforesaid consideration, we endorse the final conclusion of the High Court and hold that it rightly answered the question referred to it in the several references in the negative, in favour of the respondent and against the appellant.