Judgment Case ID: 3294

Judgment:
ivil Appeal No. 2130 and 2131 of 1970. From the Judgment and order dated the 12th February	 1970 of the Mysore High Court in I.T.R.C. Nos. 5 and 6 of 1968. N. A. Palkhivala	 and Vineet Kumar	 for the appellant. G. section Sharma and section P. Nayar for the respondent. N. A. Palkhivala	 section T. Desai	 A. G. Meneses	 Mrs. A. K. Verma	 P. N. Monga	 J. B. Dadachani for the Intervener Tribunal Trust Chandigarh. V. section Desai and J. Ramanlurthi for Intervener Saurashtra Trust	 Bombay. The Judgment of H. R. Khanna and A. C. Gupta	 JJ. was delivered by Khanna	 J. M. H. Beg	 J. gave a separate opinion. KHANNA	 J. The detailed facts of this case have been given in the judgment of our learned brother Beg J. and need not be repeated. The question of law which was referred to the High Court and which has been answered in the negative against the assessee appellant is as follows: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case	 the income	 of the Lok Shikshana Trust was entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income tax Act	 1961	 read with section 2(15) of the same Act	 for the assessment year 1962 63 ?" "Charitable purpose" was defined in section 4(3) of the Indian Income tax Act	 1922 was as under: "In this sub section 'charitable purpose ' includes relief of the poor	 education	 medical relief	 and the advancement of any other object of general public utility. " The definition of "charitable purpose" as given in section 2(15) of the Income tax Act	 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with which we are concerned reads as under: "(15) 'Charitable purpose ' includes 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. " It would appear from the above that in the definition of "charitable purpose" as given in the Act the words "not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit" have been added at the end of the definition as given in the Act of 1922. We shall see as to what is the effect of the above addition 466 In order to see as to whether the appellant trust is for a charitable purpose	 we may first go into the question as to what is the object of the appellant trust. According to Mr. Palkhivala	 learned counsel for the appellant	 the object of the appellant trust is education	 while the stand of Mr. Sharma on behalf of the revenue is that not education but the last mentioned category in section 2(15)	 viz.	 the advancement of any other object of general public utility	 is the object of tile appellant trust. The reason for the above divergence in the stands of Mr. Palkhivala and Mr. Sharma is that according to Mr. Palkhivala	 the concluding words of the definition in section 2(15) of the Act "not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit" do not qualify the first three categories of relief of the poor	 education	 or medical relief but qualify only the fourth category of "advancement of any other object of general public utility". Once the object of the appellant trust is held to be education	 the word trust would	 according to Mr. Palkhivala	 be held to be for a public purpose as defined in section 2(15) of the Act. In such an event	 it would be immaterial whether the object of the trust involves or does not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit. As against that? Mr. Sharma has controverted the submission that the concluding words of the definition	 viz.	 "not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit" qualify only the fourth category of "advancement of any other object of general public utility '. According to Mr. Sharma	 the concluding words qualify the first three categories of relief of the poor	 education and medical relief also. In any case	 submits Mr. Sharma	 the object of the appellant trust falls in the fourth category of the definition	 namely. "any other object of general public utility. " It is	 in my opinion	 not necessary to express opinion in this case on the question as to whether the words "not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit" qualify the fourth object	 viz.	 the advancement of any other object of general public utility	 or whether they also qualify the other three objects of relief of the poor	 education and medical relief	 because we are of the view that the object of the appellant trust was not education but any other object of general public utility. Clauses 2	 6	 10	 14	 16 and 18 of the trust deed of the appellant read as under.: "2. The object of the Trust shall be to educate the people of India in general and of Karnatak in particular by (a) establishing	 conducting and helping directly or indirectly institutions calculated to educate the people by spread of knowledge on all matters of general interest and welfare: (b) founding and running reading rooms and libraries and keeping and conducting printing houses and publishing or aiding the publication of books	 booklets	 leaf lets	 pamphlets	 magazines etc. 	 in Kannada and other languages	 all these activities being started	 conducted and carried on with the object of educating the peop]e: 467 (c) supplying the Kannada speaking people with an organ or organs of educated public opinion and conducting journals in Kannada and other language for the dissemination of useful news and information and for the ventilation of public opinion on matters of general public utility; and (d) helping directly or indirectly societies and institutions which have all or any of the aforesaid objects in view. The original Trustee shall have power and authority to spend and utilise the money and the property of the Trust for any of the purposes of this Trust in such manner as to him may appear proper. The original Trustee shall be entitled to operate all the Banking accounts of the Trust. The original Trustee shall have full power to take over on such terms as he may deem fit such concern or concerns or undertakings as	 in his opinion	 are congenial or conducive to any of the purposes of the Trust. The original Trustee shall be entitled to appoint a Manager or Managers of institutions of the Trust	 Editor or Editors and other subordinates for the purposes of carrying out the printing and publication of any newspaper or newspapers	 weeklies	 monthlies magazines	 books or other publications	 and shall have power from time to time to delegate To any one or more persons by Power of Attorney or otherwise any one or more of the following powers. (a) To open one or more banking accounts	 to operate the same and to deposit and withdraw moneys from the same; (b) To give receipts or discharges for money or property Received by them or any one of them in the course of business carried on by the Trust; (c) To buy or sell paper	 ink	 machines	 books and materials required for the purposes of the business of the Trust: (d) To enter into contracts with agents	 dealers and others in the course of the business of the Trust; (e) To employ or remove subordinates and workers necessary for the work; (f) and generally to do all things necessary and expedient in carrying out the business entrusted to him or Them. The original Trustee or Trustees shall not take any remuneration for discharging his or their duties as a Trustee or Trustees provided that this provision shall not preclude a 468 Trustee or Trustees from being paid out of the Trust fund such remuneration as may be deemed proper for carrying out any work and duty in connection with the conduct or management of institutions of the Trust	 or with the business of printing	 publishing or other activities carried on by the Trust. A Trustee shall be entitled to be paid an expenses that may be incurred by him in connection with his duties as a Trustee including travelling and other expenses. The original Trustee or other Trustees shall not be responsible for any loss occasioned to the Trust in respect of any business or dealings carried on behalf of the Trust unless the same is due to his own fraud or misappropriation or breach of trust and every trustee shall be indemnified by and out of the funds and moneys of the Trust against any loss or damage which the Trustee might suffer in regard to any act	 deed	 or omission of his in the performance of his duties as a Trustee	 including any fines or penalities imposed under the Factory Act or any Labour Legislation or Press Act or any other similar enactment. " The income tax officer sent a communication to the trust on April 27	 1963 to the effect that since the only activity of the trust was printing	 publication and sale of newspaper	 weekly and monthly journal	 the trust carried on an activity for profit and was not entitled to exemption. In reply to that notice the Sole Trustee stated that the above mentioned activities of the trust were covered by clause (c) of the objects clause of the trust deed. It was added that the above object did not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit. In a further communication dated June 26	 1964 the Sole Trustee wrote: "The Trust has four objects in its objects clause one of which is to supply the Kannada speaking people with an organ or organs of educated public opinion etc. (clause 2(c) of Trust Deed). Under this clause we conduct the publication of newspapers. This has not been agreed upon by your honour as a Charitable purpose and we have accordingly preferred appeals for relief. The main object of the Trust is education and this may be achieved by conducting and helping educational institutions having the similar objects as of our l`rust. These are all charitable objects. In case the Trust has a surplus income it cannot be spent on any object other than the objects of the Trust. For the present we have been educating the Kannada speaking people through newspapers and journals and we shall be taking up the other ways and means of education as noted in our trust deed as and when it is possible for Trust. We have no option at all except to spend our income on the objects of our Trust which are all charitable without any doubt or ambiguity. " We have set out above the relevant clauses of the trust deed and the material part of the communications sent by the Sole Trustee. It would 469 appear therefrom that though a number of objects	 including the setting up of educational institutions	 were mentioned in the trust deed` as the objects of the trust	 supplying the Kannada speaking people with an organ of educated public Opinion was also one of those objects. The communication sent by the Sole Trustee to the income tax officer shows that the trust at present is carrying out only the last mentioned object of the trust	 namely	 supplying the Kannada speaking people with an organ or organs of educated public opinion. The concentration so far of the activities of the trust only on that object is in pursuance of clause 6 of the trust deed	 according to which original trustee shall have power and authority to spend and utilise the money and the property of the trust for any of the purposes of the trust in such manner as to him may appear proper. The sense in which the word "education" has been used in section 2(15) is the systematic instruction	 schooling or training given to the young in preparation for the work of life. It also connotes the whole course of scholastic instruction which a person has received. The word "education" has not been used in that wide and extended sense	 according to which every acquisition of further knowledge constitutes education. According to this wide and extended sense	 travelling is education	 because as a result of travelling you acquire fresh knowledge. Like wise	 if you read newspapers and magazines	 see pictures	 visit art galleries	 museums and zoos	 you thereby add to your knowledge. Again	 when you grow up and have dealings with other people	 some of whom are not straight you learn by experience and thus add to your knowledge of the ways of the world. If you are not careful	 your wallet is liable to be stolen or you are liable to be cheated by some unscrupulous person. The thief who removes your wallet and the swindler who cheats you teach you a lesson and in the process make you wiser though poorer. If you visit a night club	 your get acquainted with and add to your knowledge about some of the not much revealed realities and mysteries of life. All this in a way is education in the great school of life. But that is not the sense in which the word "education" is used in clause (15) of section 2. What education connotes in that clause is the process of training and developing the knowledge	 skill	 mind and character of students by formal schooling. The question as to whether a trust the object of which is to supply the people with an organ of educated public opinion should be considered to be one for education or for any other object of public utility was considered by the Judicial Committee in the case of In re The Trustees of the 'Tribune '. In that case a person who owned a press and a newspaper created by his will by which his property in the stock and goodwill of the press and newspaper was made to vest permanently in a committee of certain members. It was the duty of the said committee of trustees under the will "to maintain the said press and news paper in an efficient condition	 and to keep up the liberal policy of the said newspaper	 devoting the surplus income of the said press and newspaper after defraying all current expenses in improving the said newspaper and placing it on a footing of permanency". It was also 470 provided by an arrangement made subsequently that in case the paper ceased to function or for any other reason the surplus of the income could not be applied to the object mentioned above	 the same should be applied for the maintenance of a college which had been established out our the funds of another trust created by the same testator. There was surplus income in the hands of the trustees after defraying the expenses of the press and the newspaper. Question arose as to whether that income was liable to be assessed in the hands of the trustees. The Judicial Committee held that the object of the settlor was to supply the province of the Punjab with an organ of educated public opinion and this was prima facie an object of general public utility. Their Lordships unequivocally expressed the view that they were not prepared to hold that the property referred to in the various paragraphs of the will was held for the purpose of "education" in the sense that word was used in section 4 of the Indian Income tax Act of 1922. The above decision of the Judicial Committee applies directly to the present case and in view of this decision	 we would hold that the object of the appellant trust was "the advancement of any other object of general public utility". It has been pointed out in the earlier part of the judgment that in the definition of charitable purpose as given in section 2(15) of the Act the words "not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit '? have been added at the end of the definition as it was given in section 4(3) of the Indian Income tax Act	 1922. The position as it existed under the Act of 1922 was that once the purpose of the trust was relief of the poor	 education medical relief or the advancement of any other object of general public utility. the trust was considered to be for a charitable purpose. As a result of the addition of the words "not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit" at the end of the definition in section 2(15) of the Act even if the purpose of the trust is "advancement of any other object of general public utility"	 it would not be considered to be "charitable purpose" unless it is shown that the above purpose does not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit. The result thus of the change in the definition is that in order to bring a case within the fourth category of charitable purpose	 it would be necessary to show that (1) the purpose of the trust is advancement of any other object of general public utility	 and (2) the above purpose docs not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit. Both the above conditions must be fulfilled b. fore the purpose of the trust can be held to be charitable purpose. It is not necessary for the decision of this case	 as already mentioned above	 to go into the question as to whether the words "not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit" also qualify the first three categories of charitable purpose	 namely relief of the poor	 education and medical relief. Question then arises as to whether the purpose of the appellant trust can be considered to be one not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit. So far as this question is concerned	 we find that the appellant trust started with a sum of Rs. 4.308	 10 As. 9 Pies. The schedule attached to the trust deed dated April 10	 1947 shows that the assets of the trust consisted of printing machines	 accessories	 motor cars	 building	 stocks of paper and other miscellaneous things. The total value of 471 the assets was Rs. 2	97658	 out of which the value of the building sites and the buildings was Rs. 47	500. As against that	 the liabilities of the trust amounted to Rs. 1	24	086. The net value of the assets of the trust rose in 1947 to a figure of Rs. 1	73	571	 14 As. 4 Pies. For the assessment year 1962 63	 which is the year under appeal	 the total receipts of the trust were of the amount of Rs. 22	55	077. The main sources of the receipts were sales of newspapers and magazines through agents	 receipts on account of advertisements	 receipts for job printing bills be sides some other minor items. "As against the receipts	 the major items of expenditure were the purchase of newsprint	 paper	 printing types	. printing and other material	 the salaries and allowances of the staff	 remuneration to news agencies and railway freight. There can	 there fore	 be no doubt that the trust has been carrying on the business of publishing newspaper and weekly and monthly magazines. The profits from the aforesaid business would also apparently account for the manifold increase in the value of the assets of the trust. The emphasis on business activity of the trust is also manifest from clauses 6	 10	 14	 16 and 18 of the trust deed reproduced above. The fact that the appellant trust is engaged in the business of printing and publication of newspaper and 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". It is true that there are some business activities like mutual insurance and co operative stores of which profit making is not an essential ingredient	 but that is so because of a self imposed and innate restriction on making profit in the carrying on of that particular type of business. Ordinarily profit motive is a normal incidence of business activity and if the activity of a trust consists of carrying on of a business and there are no restrictions on its making profit. the court would he 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 profit. The expression "business"	 as observed by Shah J. speaking for the Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs M/s. Raipur. Mfg. Co.	 though extensively used in taxing statutes	 is word of indefinite import. In taxing statutes	 it is used in the sense of an occupation	 or profession which occupies the time	 attention and labour of a person	 normally with the object of making profit. To regard an activity as business there must be a course of dealings	 either actually continued or contemplated to be continued with a profit motive	 and not for sport or pleasure. Whether a person carries on business in a particular commodity must depend upon the volume	 frequency	 continuity and regularity of transactions of purchase and sale in a class of goods and the transactions must ordinarily be entered into with a profit motive. By the use of the expression "profit motive" it is not intended that profit must in fact be earned. Nor does the expression cover a mere desire to make some monetary gain out o transaction or even a series of transactions. It predicates a motive which pervades the whole series of transactions effected by the person in 472 the course of his activity. In the case of Commissioner of Income tax vs Lahore Electric Supply Co. Ltd. Sarkar J. speaking for the majority observed that business as contemplated by section 10 if the Indian Income tax Act	 1922	 is an activity capable of producing a profit which can be taxed. In the case of the appellant trust the activity of the trust	 as already observed earlier	 has in fact been yielding profits and that apparently accounts for the increase in the value of its assets. We are not impressed by the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that profit under section 2(15) of the Act means private profit. The word used in the definition given in the above provision is profit and not private profit and it would not be permissible to read in the above definition the word "private" as qualifying profit even though such word is not there. There is also no apparent justification or cogent reason for placing such a construction on the word "profit". The words "general public utility" contained in the definition of charitable purpose are very wide. These words	 as held by the Judicial Committee in the case of All India Spinners ' Association vs Commissioner of Income tax	 exclude objects of private gain. It is also difficult to subscribe to the view that the newly added words "not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit" merely qualify and affirm what was the position as it obtained under the definition given in the Act of 1922. If the legislature intended that the concept of charitable purpose should be the same under the Act of 1961 as it was in the Act of 1922	 there was no necessity for it to add the new words in the definition. The earlier definition did not involve any ambiguity and the position in law was clear and admitted of no doubt after the pronouncement of the Judicial Committee in the cases of Tribune and All India Spinners ' Association (supra). If despite that fact	 the legislature added new words in the definition of charitable purpose	 it would be contrary to all rules of construction to ignore the impact of the newly added words and to so construe the definition as if the newly added words were either not there or were intended to be otiose and redundant. The appeals fail and are dismissed but in the circumstances without costs. BEG	 J. The. question	 answered in the negative in this case by the Mysore High Court	 which is now before us after certification of the case under Section 261 of the Income tax Act	 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act ')	 was framed by the Income tax Tribunal as follows: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case	 the income of the Loka Shikshana Trust was entitled to exemption under Sec. 11 of the Income tax Act	 1961 read with Sec. 2(15) of the same Act	 for the assessment year 1962 63". The appellant is a sole trustee of the "Loka Shikshana Trust"	 holding properties mentioned in a schedule attached to a deed of trust executed on 19 2 1962 by himself purporting to re declare a trust of 15 7 1935. The total assets of the earlier trust of 1935	 known as the 473 "National Literature Publications Trust"	 consisted of a sum of Rs. 4308.10.9 only. It appears that	 under the provisions of the earlier trust	 the trustee had carried on a lucrative business of printing	 under the name of "Karnatak Prakashana Mandal"	 at Belgaum	 and	 thereafter	 it was shifted to Hubli where he started publishing a daily newspaper called "Samyukta Karnatak". The printing business must have been lucrative because investments of profits from it	 together with some possible "donations"	 expanded the assets of the redeclared trust of 1962 so much that the schedule attached to the trust deed of 1962 shows their value to be Rs. 2	97	658/ . After deducting the total liabilities of the trust	 shown as Rs. 1	24	086.10 annas	 the net value of the assets is given as Rs. 1	73	571.14.4. Even if the obvious inference from statements found in the trust deed of 1962? which is part of the statement of the case	 showing the assets of the trust of 1953 as well as of the re declared trust of 196	 that the trustee was carrying on a fairly lucrative business	 the profits of which had been utilised for building up its assets	 could possibly be ignored	 we find	 from the statement of the accounts submitted by the appellant trustee himself to the Income tax Department for the assessment year 1962 63	 with which we are concerned	 that the trust had mad. quite considerable profits from various activities carried on as a part of its ordinary and regular business. Here	 a gross income of Rs. 22	55	077.46 nP is shown. This included Rs. 12	31	954.54 from sales of newspapers and magazines through agents	 Rs. 7	29	249.27 from advertisements and notices alone	 Rs. 1	27	422.53 as payments of "job printing bills". The sales of its newspapers and journals through retailers brought in Rs. 66	010.68 np. The subscribers of newspapers and journals contributed Rs. 51	7803.74. "Profits" from sales of other publications are shown as Rs. 5040.05 np. Income from "sundry receipts" is given as Rs. 2964.57 np. "profits from the sale of a van and machinery are shown as Rs. 4829.83. Some other income is shown as Rs. 2337.95 Interest on investments is shown as Rs. 1762.71. A glance at items of expenditure shows that nothing was spent for which a deduction could not be claimed by any private concern carrying on a profitable business. These	 items of expense consisted of money spent on repairs	 of buildings	 payments of taxes	 purchases of newsprint and other kinds of paper	 ink	 photographic materials	 blocks	 binding	 stitching and packing materials	 payments of salaries	 wages and allowances to the staff. After deducting the total expenditure of Rs. 4	92	246.81 from the gross income	 the net income for the year is shown as Rs. 30	376.80 np. for which exemption from Income tax is claimed by the appellant on the ground that it is protected from taxation by Section 11 read with Section 2(15) of the Act. The trust deed of 1962	 which	 as already stated	 is a part of the statement of the case	 gives the past history of the trust	 in the course of a fairly long preamble. It contains the following passage giving some idea of the activities	 of the trust	 the composition of its present assets as well as of utilisation of its income since 1935: "AND WHEREAS in furtherance of the objects contain ed in the said deed of Trust dated 15th July	 1935	 I took 474 over on 17 7 1935 a concern called the Karnatak Prakashana Mandal	 Belgaum	 and conducted a printing Press for some time at Belgaum	 and? thereafter	 at Hubli	 and printed and published a daily paper "Samyukta Karnatak"	 and a weekly paper called "Weekly Samyukta Karnatak"	 which was later called "Karmaveer"	 and also published certain books	 pamphlet	 and other literature	 as a result whereof the property of the trust increased from time to time	 and the said property is today comprised of printing presses	 buildings	 land and other property which is set out in the schedule hereunder written". The trust deed also contains a reference to what necessitated a redeclaration of the trust. An amended meaning of "charitable purpose"	 given in Section 2(15) of the Act of 1961	 must have given rise to some doubts in the minds of the maker of the trust about the taxability of the income of the trust which was exempted from payment of income tax in the past. He said: "And whereas doubts have arisen regarding the legal validity of the Trust declared in the aforesaid Deed of Trust dated 15th July 1935. AND whereas it became necessary to take steps to remove the said doubts and to prevent similar doubts arising in future	 I	 Ranganath Ramachandra Diwakar Who has been the only Trustee of the National Literature Publication Trust declared as aforesaid	 have obtained legal opinion in the matter of the said Trust and I am desirous	 with a view to carrying out public purposes of a charitable nature of re declaring the Trusts in accordance with the legal opinion obtained by me as aforesaid	 on which I hold and shall continue to hold the original Trust amount of Rs. 4	308:10.9	 and all contributions	 additions	 accumulations	 and acquisitions to the same which are now comprised in the Schedule hereunder written and all the properties	 funds	 assets	 and any conversions or reconversions thereof and the investment in which the same may from time to time be held". The objects of the trust are set out as follows: "2. The object of the Trust shall be to educate the people of India in general and of Karnatak in particular by	 (a) establishing	 conducting and helping directly or in directly institutions calculated to educate the people by spread of knowledge on all matters of general interest and welfare; (b) founding and running reading rooms and libraries and keeping and conducting printing houses and publishing or aiding the publication of books	 booklets	 leaflets	 pamphlets	 magazines ets. in Kannada and other languages all these activities being started	 conducted	 and carried on with the object of educating the people: 475 (c) supplying the Kannada speaking people with an organ or organs of educated public opinion and conducting journals in Kannada and other languages for the dissemination of useful news and information and for the ventilation of public opinion on matters of general public utility; and (d) helping directly or indirectly societies and institutions which have all or any of the aforesaid objects in view". In addition to the power which the sole trustee had to collect donations and subscriptions for the trust. he had all the powers which the sole manager of a business may have in order to carry it on profitably. He had the power of transferring trust properties and funds if he thought "it expedient in the interest of the objects of the Trust	 to transfer the assests and liabilities of this Trust to any other Charitable Trust or institution conducted by such Trust which in the opinion of the original Trustee or the Board of Trustee has objects similar to the objects of this Trust and is capable of carrying out the objects and purposes of this Trust either fully or partially" (Paragraph 17 of the Trust deed). Although	 the "original trustee" was not "to take any remuneration" for discharging his duties as a trustee	 yet	 he was not precluded "from being paid out of the Trust fund such remuneration as may be deemed propellor carrying out any work and duty in connection with the conduct or management of institutions of the Trust	 or with the business of printing	 publishing or other activities carried on by the Trust". He was to be paid expenses incurred in travelling or otherwise in connection with his duties as a trustee (paragraph 16 of the Trust deed). The "original trustee" could invest trust monies and profits "in any investment authorised by law for the investment of Trust funds or in shares	 or securities or debentures of Limited Companies in India or outside" (para 4 of the Trust deed). He had the "power to mortgage	 sell	 transfer and give on lease or to otherwise deal with the Trust property or any portion thereof for the purpose of the Trust and to borrow monies or raise loans for the purpose of the Trust whenever he may deem it necessary to do so" (para 8 of the Trust deed). Furthermore	 the Trustee had the "power and authority to spend and utilise the money and the property of the Trust for any of the purposes of this Trust in such manner as to him may appear proper". lt appears to us that	 with this profit making background of the trust	 its loosely stated objects the wide powers of the sole trustee	 and the apparently profitable mode of conducting business	 just like any commercial concern	 disclosed not only by the terms of the trust but by the statement of total expenditure and income by the trustee it is very difficult to see what educational or other charitable purpose the trust was serving unless the dissemination of information and expression of opinions through the publications of the trust was in itself treated as the really educational and charitable purpose. The principal arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant trustee are: firstly paragraph 2(c) of the Trust deed only enables the trustee 476 to supply the Kannada speaking people with organs or means for express educated public opinion as a mode of serving the real and expressly mentioned purpose of "education" which must control and determine the true nature of the activities of the trust so that profit making	 as an incidental consequence of these activities	 was quite immaterial; and	 secondly	 even if the activities of the trust did not fall within the separate category of	 "education" as such	 in which case profit yielding became quite irrelevant	 but fell under the more general or the 4th and last category of purposes of general public utility specified in Section 2(15) of the Act	 the mere fact that the conduct of the printing business was profitable sometimes or even constantly wag not enough to make it an activity carried on "for profit". The first contention rests on the assumption that an express mention of a dominant though general purpose of "education" will enable the Courts to supervise the execution of such a trust as one intended solely for educational purposes. The second submission	 accepted by. the Income tax Tribunal but rejected by the High Court	 implies that the profit making motive must be specifically and expressly made the object of an activity which is of obvious utility to the public before excerption from taxation can be denied to such an activity. In other words	 the added qualification or condition imposed upon a work of "general public utility"	 before it could pass the test of a charitable purpose	 made no difference to the law. According to learned Counsel for the appellant	 the amendment was meant to make explicit what was previously only implicit in the law as it stood. The argument thus is that the amendment only clarified without actually changing the law on the subject. The last paragraph of clause (3) of Section 4 of the Indian Income tax Act of 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1922 ') laid down: " 'charitable purpose ' includes relief of the poor	 education	 medical relief and the advancement of any other object of general public utility	 but nothing contained	 in clause (i) or clause (ii) shall operate to exempt from the provisions of this Act that part of the income from property held under a trust or other legal obligation for private religious purposes which does not enure for the benefit of the public". It will be noticed that the provision set out above did not really define a "charitable purpose" but purports only to indicate a concept of charity which would include the four categories of objects mentioned there. The four fold classification of charitable purposes has a history in English law. A statute of Elizabeth I which "was not directed so much to the definition of charity as to the correction of abuses which had grown up in the administration of trusts of a charitable nature" (See: Tudor on "Charities" six End. p. 2) had a preamble containing; an illustrative list of charitable objects which was never treated as haustive. It	 however	 became the practice of Courts "to refer to the preamble as a sort of index or chart in order to determine whether or not a given purpose was charitable". Thus	 a purpose was considered	 in the eye of law	 to be charitable only if it came within the letter or the spirit and inendment of the preamble of the statute of Elizabeth. 477 To give a semblance of order to the rather confusing mass of case law which had accumulated on the subject	 attempts were made to ; classify purposes which had obtained recognition by Courts as charitable. Lard Macnaghten	 in Income Tax Commissioners vs Pemsel adopted a four fold classification of charitable purposes which had been first put . forward in the course of an argument by Sir Samuel Romilly in Morice vs Bishop of Durham. These were (1) Relief of poverty	 (2) advancement of education; (3) advancement of religion; (4) other purposes beneficial to the community not falling under any of the pre ceding heads The last or the residuary category seemed very wide and general. Properly speaking	 such a wide category would be interpreted	 if it were found in a statute	 ejusdem generis with the previous three categories	 which were less wide and more specific. The framers of our Act of 1922 must have been attracted by this classification which they adopted with some modifications	 "Medical relief" was apparently sub stituted for "advancement of religion". In All India Spinners ' Association vs Commissioner of Income tax	 Bombay(3)	 Lord Wright	 while considering the meaning of Sec 4(3) of the 1922 Act	 observed (at P. 486) "The Act of 43 Elizabeth (1601) contained in a preamble a list of charitable objects which fell within the Act	 and this was taken as a sort of chart or scheme which the Courts adopted as a groundwork for developing the law	 in doing so they made liberal use of analogies so that the modern English law can only be ascertained by considering a mass of particular decisions often difficult to reconcile. It is true that Section 4(3) of the Act has largely been influenced by Lord Macnaghten 's definition of charity in Pemsel vs Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income tax ; at p. 583	 but that definition has no statutory authority and is not precisely followed in the most material particular; the words of the section are 'for the advancement of any other object of general public utility '	 whereas Lord Macnaghten 's words were 'other purposes beneficial to the community '. The difference in language	 particularly the inclusion in the Indian Act of the word 'public ' is of importance. " The trend of judicial pronouncements was to construe the words "general public utility"	 in Section 4(3) of the Act of 1922	 very widely. The only serious limitation put on the character of a "general public utility" seems to have been that it clearly excluded the object of private profit making. Thus	 in the All India Spinners ' Association case (supra)	 the Privy Council	 while holding that the "primary object" of the Association appeared to be "the relief of the poor"	 said (at p. 488): 478 "That would be enough prima facie to satisfy the statute. But there is good ground for holding that the purposes of the Association included the advancement of other purposes of general public utility. These last are very wide words. Their exact scope may require on other occasion very careful consideration. They were applied in the Tribune Press case (1939) 66 I.A. 241; 7 I.T.R. (415) without any very precise definition to the production of the newspaper in question under the conditions fixed by the testator 's will. The Board stated (at p. 256) that: 'the object of the paper might be described as the object of supplying the province with an organ of educated public opinion '. and that it should prima facie be held to be an object of general public utility. These words	 their Lordship this would exclude the object of private gain	 such as an under taking for commercial profit though all the same it would subserve general public utility. But private profit was eliminated in this case". In Commissioner of Income Tax	 Madras vs Andhra Chamber of Commerce	 this Court interpreting Section 4(3) of the 1922	 Act	 held (at p. 732): "The expression 'object of general public utility ' in section 4(3) would prima facie include all objects which promote the welfare of the general public". Decision of some cases seems to have revolved round the question whether the body of beneficiaries was large enough to constitute the purpose one of "public utility". Some of the decisions on income for which exemption was claimed on the ground that it was meant for a charitable purpose falling within the wide residuary class perhaps travelled even beyond the "bursting point" to which	 according to Lord Russell of Killowen	 English Courts had stretched the concept of charity [See: In re Grove Grady]. At any rate	 the reason which induced our Government to make an amendment by Section 2(15) of the Act of 1961 was thus stated by the Finance Minister Shri Morarji Desai	 in the course of his speech in Parliament explaining the proposed amendment (see: Lok Sabha Debate dated 18 8 1961)(3): "The other objective of the Select Committee	 limiting the exemption only to trusts and institutions whose object is a genuine charitable purpose has been achieved by amending the definition in clause 2(15). The definition of 'charitable ' purpose in that clause is at present so widely worded that 479 it can be taken advantage of even by commercial concerns which	 while ostensibly serving a public purpose	 get fully paid for the benefits provided by them	 namely	 the news paper industry which while running its concern on commercial lines can claim that by circulating newspapers it was improving the general knowledge of the public. In order to prevent the misuse of this defamation in such cases	 the Select Committee felt that the words 'not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit ' should be added lo the definition". (p. 3074). Mr. Palkhivala objected strongly to any reference to the speech of the Finance Minister	 who proposed the amendment	 for the purpose of finding cut the object of the amendment. He contended that speeches made by Members of Parliament in the course of debates on pro visions enacted were not to be looked at for interpreting the language of the enactment to which we should confine ourselves. He relied on the well known dictum of Rowlatt J.	 in Cape Brandy Syndicate vs I.R.C.	 when that learned Judge said: "In a taxing Act one has to look at what is clearly said . one can only look fairly at the language used". It was contended that	 as the meaning of words used in Section 2(15) was very clear we need go no further. l am not able to accept this over simplification of the problem before us. To say that the concept of a charitable purpose	 either before or after the amendment we are considering	 was at all clear or free from considerable ambiguity and difficulty would be to ignore the plethora of not always consistent case law which one can find on the subject and to minimize the difficulties of Courts. "Charitable purpose" has never been at all clearly defined or exhaustively illustrated. We have	 therefore	 to discover the mischief aimed at by the amendment. It is true that it is dangerous and may be misleading to gather the meaning of the words used in an enactment merely from what was said by any speaker in the course of a debate in Parliament on the subject. Such a speech cannot be used to defeat or detract from a meaning which clearly emerges from a consideration of the enacting words actually used. But	 in the case before us	 the real meaning and purpose of the words used cannot be understood at all satisfactorily without referring to the past history of legislation on the subject and the speech of the mover of the amendment who was	 undoubtedly	 in the best position to explain what defect in the law the amendment had sought to remove. It was not just the speech of any member in Parliament. It was the considered statement of the Finance Minister who was proposing the amendment for a particular reason which he clearly indicated. If the reason given by him only elucidates what is also deducible from the words used in the amend cd provision	 we do not sec why we should refuse to take it into 480 consideration as an aid to a correct interpretation. It harmonises with and clarifies the real intent of the words used. Must we	 in such circumstances	 ignore it ? We find that Section 57	 sub s (4) of the Evidence Act not only enables but enjoins Courts to take judicial notice of the course of proceedings in Parliament assuming	 of course	 that it is relevant. It is true that the correctness of what is stated on a question of fact	 in the course of Parliamentary proceedings	 can only be proved by somebody who had direct knowledge of the fact stated. There is	 however	 a distinction between the fact that a particular statement giving the purpose of an enactment was made in Parliament	 of which judicial notice can be taken as part of the proceedings	 and the truth of a disputable matter of fact stated in the course of proceedings	 which has to be proved aliunde	 that is to say	 apart from the fact that a statement about it was made in the course of proceedings in Parliament (See: Rt. Hon 'ble Jerald Lord Strickland vs Carmeld Mifud Bonnici	 The Englishman Ltd. vs Lajpat Rai. In the case before us	 a reference was made merely to the fact that a certain reason was given by the Finance Minister	 who proposed an amendment	 for making the amendment. What we can take judicial notice of is the fact that such a statement of the reason was given in the course of such a speech. The question whether the object stated was properly expressed by the language of Section 2(15) of the Act is a matter which we have to decide for ourselves as a question of law. Interpretation of a statutory provision is always a question of law on which the reasons stated by the mover of the amendment can only be used as an aid in interpretation if we think	 as I do in the instant case	 that it helps us considerably in understanding the meaning of the amended law. We find no bar against such a use of the speech. In Anandji Haridas & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Engineering Mazdoor Sangh & Anr.	 a Division Bench of this Court observed (at p. 949) "As a general principle of interpretation	 where the words of a statute are plain	 precise	 and unambiguous	 the intention of the Legislature is to be gathered from the language of the statute itself and no external evidence such as Parliamentary Debates	 Reports of the Committees of the Legislature or even the statement made by the Minister on the introduction of a measure or by the framers of the Act is ad missible to construe those words. It is only where a statute is not exhaustive or where its language is ambiguous	 uncertain	 clouded or susceptible or more than one meaning or shades of meaning	 that external evidence as to the evils	 if any	 which the statute was intended to remedy	 or of the circumstances which led to the passing of the statute may 481 be looked into for the purpose of ascertaining the object which the Legislature had in view in using the words in question". The Finance Minister 's speech tells us that the Government was accepting the recommendations of the Select Committee to which the Bill which became the Act of 1961 had been referred. One of the recommendations was: "The Committee is of the opinion that the advancement of an object of general public utility which involves the carrying on of any activity for profit should not come within the ambit of a charitable purpose". [See Gazette of India Extraordinary Part II	 Section 2	 p. 677(4)]. In Commissioner of Income tax	 Gujarat vs Vadilal Lallubhai	 this Court	 following its earlier decision in Commissioner of Income tax vs Sadora Devi did not consider it at all inappropriate to refer to a Select Committee 's Report for finding out the reason behind an ambiguous provision so as to be able to apply the Mischief Rule. It is too late in the day for Mr. Palkhivala to object to the adoption of such a course in an attempt to apply the Mischief Rule to find out the reason behind an amendment of the law. The case on which Mr. Palkhivala	 the learned Counsel for the appellant	 relies most strongly for support to his client 's case on merits is: In Re the 'Tribune '(3)	 where the Privy Council	 allowing an appeal from a Full Bench decision of the Lahore High Court	 held that the income a Trust	 the object of which was described as "supplying the province with an organ of an educated public opinion"	 was entitled to exemption on the ground that it was a trust for a purpose of "General public utility" and not just for propagating any political views. It was also held there that such a trust would not fall within the category of Trusts for education in the sense in which that term appears in Section 4 of the Act of 1922. The Privy Council	 after observing that the Chief Justice and Addison	 J.	 of the Lahore High Court	 had laid some stress on the fact "that the Tribune newspaper charges its readers and advertisers at ordinary commercial rates for the advantages which it affords"	 said (at p. 422): "As against this the evidence or finding do not disclose that any profit was made by the newspaper or press before 1918 and it is at least certain that neither was founded for private profit whether to the testator or any other person. By the terms of the trust it is not to be carried on for profit to any individual. It cannot	 in their 482 Lordships ' opinion	 be regarded as an element necessarily present in any purpose of general public utility	 that it should provide something for nothing or for less than it costs or for less than the ordinary price. An elemosynary element is not essential even in the strict English view of charitable uses (Commissioners vs University College of North Wales 	 414)". It seems clear to us that the amended provisions	 Section 2(15) in the Act of 1961	 was directed at a change of law as it was declared by the Privy Council in the Tribune case (supra). The amended provision reads as follows: "section 2(15) 'charitable purpose ' includes 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;" It is apparent that	 even now	 charitable purpose has not been defined. The four fold classification	 which was there in the Act of 1922	 is there even in the amended provision	 but the last or general category of objects of "general public utility" is now qualified by the need to show that it did not involve profit making. The question before us	 therefore is: What is the meaning or purpose of introducing the limitation" not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit" ? The contention of Mr. Palkhivala is that it merely indicates that	 as was held in the Tribune case (supra) and other cases	 the purpose must not be private profit making or	 in other words	 the benefit must be to an object of "general public utility". This involves reading of the word "private" before "profit" which is quite unjustifiable. Furthermore	 if that was the sole purpose of the amendment	 we think that the amendment was not necessary at all. It had been declared repeatedly by the Courts even before the amendment that activities motivated by private profit making fell outside the concept of charity altogether. We think that it is more reasonable to infer that the words used clearly imposed a new qualification on public utilities entitled to exemption. It was obvious that	 unless such a limitation was introduced	 the fourth and last category would become too wide to prevent its abuse. Wide words so used could have been limited in scope by judicial interpretations ejusdem generis so as to confine the last category to objects similar to those in the previous categories and also subject to a dominant concept of charity which must govern all the four categories. But	 the declaration of law by the Privy Council	 in the Tribune case (supra)	 had barred this method of limiting an obviously wide category of profitable activities of general public utility found entitled to exemption. Hence	 the only other way of cutting down the wide sweep of objects of "general public utility" entitled to exemption was by legislation. This	 therefore	 was the method Parliament adopted as is clear from the speech of the Finance Minister who introduced the amendment in Parliament. 483 The word "involve" does not	 it seems to me	 necessitate the bringing out of the profit motive of an activity expressly in the deed of trust as was suggested by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The dictionary meaning of the word 'involve ' is: "to entangle; to include; to contain; to imply" (see; The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary III Edn. p. 1042). All profit making	 even as a mere by product	 would have been covered by the word "involving"	 which is of wide import	 if this word had stood alone and by itself without further qualifications by the context. The use of the words "for profit"	 however	 shows that the involvement of profit making should be of such a degree or to such an extent as to enable us to infer it to be the real object. As a rule	 if the terms of the trust permit its operation "for profit"	 they become prima facie evidence of a purpose falling outside charity. They would indicate the object of profit making unless and until it is shown that terms of the trust compel the trustee to utilise the profits of business also for charity. This means that the test introduced by the amendment is: Does the purpose of a trust restrict spending the income of a profitable activity exclusively or primarily upon what is "charity" in law ? If the profits must necessarily feed a charitable purpose	 under the terms of the trust	 the mere fact that the activities of the trust yield profit will not alter the charitable character of the trust. The test now is	 more clearly than in the past	 the genuineness of the purpose tested by the obligation created to spend the money exclusively or essentially on "charity". If that obligation is there	 the income becomes entitled to exemption. That	 in our opinion	 is the most reliable test. The difficult question	 however	 still remains: what is the meaning of "charitable purpose" which is only indicated but not defined by Section 2(15) of the Act ? It seems to me that a common concept or element of "charity" is shared by each of the four different categories of charity. It is true that charity does not necessarily exclude carrying on an activity which yields profit	 provided that profit has to be used up for what is recognised as charity. The very concept of charity denotes altruistic thought and action. Its object must necessarily be to benefit others rather than one 's self. Its essence is selflessness. In a truly charitable activity any possible benefit to the person who does the charitable act is merely incidental or even accidental and immaterial. The action which flows from charitable thinking is not directed towards benefitting one 's self. It is always directed at benefitting others. It is this direction of thought and effort and not the result of what is done	 in terms of financially measurable gain	 which determines that it is charitable. This direction must be evident and obligatory upon the trustee from the terms of a deed of trust before it can be held to be really charitable. We think that this governing idea of charity must qualify purpose of every category enumerated in Section 2(15) of the Act of 1961. We think that the words introduced by the Act of 1961 to qualify the last and widest category of objects of public utility were really intended to bring out what has to be the dominant characteristic of 484 each and every category of charity. They were intended to bring the last and most general category in line with the nature of activities considered truly charitable and mentioned in the earlier categories. Coming now to the deed of trust before us	 we find that the word "education" is mentioned by the maker of the trust in a rather ceremonial or ritualistic fashion as a label for what he considers to be charitable object. The third set of objects	 in clause 2 of the deed does not appear to be stated there merely as a means of serving the general purpose of "education" separable from these objects in clause (c). On the other hand	 there are strong grounds for believing	 in the light of other provisions and profit making activities and background of the trust	 that the object of education was mentioned in the deed only as a convenient cloak to conceal and serve the real and dominant purpose of clause 2(c) which was to run a profitable newspaper and publishing business without paying the tax on it. Just as mere making of profit as a consequence or incident of altruistic activity is not decisive of the real purpose or object of the activity	 so also the carrying on of a business for profit does not cease to be so merely because losses are actually incurred in certain years or because those who carry it on call it "education". It would be difficult to find any commercial activity which makes profits always or which expressly gives out that its existence depends upon profit making although	 in practice	 and	 ultimately	 its continuance may depend on profit making. A newly started business may	 initially	 have to run at a loss; but	 at a later stage	 it may earn magnificent profits. Therefore	 test of the real character or purpose of an activity cannot be whether its continuance is made to depend upon profits resulting from it or not. Such a test would be artificial and specious. I do not think that the qualification introduced by Section 2(15) of the Act of 1961 was intended to compel Courts to look for the conditions on which continuance of activities of public utility is made to depend. If profit making results from them and these profits can be utilised for non charitable purposes the trust which makes this possible would not be exempt from paying income tax. In the trust deed before us	 as we have already indicated	 the trustee had not only wide powers of utilisation of trust funds for purposes of the trust but could divert its assets as well as any of the funds of the Trust to other institutions whose objects are "similar to the objects" of the trust and of "carrying out the objects and purposes of this trust either fully or partially". The whole deed appears to me to be cleverly drafted so as to make the purpose of clause 2(c) resemble the one which was held to be protected from income tax in the Tribune case (supra). Indeed the very language used by the Privy Council in the Tribune case (supra)	 for describing the objects of the Trust in that case	 seems to have been kept in view by the draftsman of the trust deed before us. And	 we find that the power of diverting the assets and income of the Trust although couched in language which seems designed to counsel their real effect is decisive on the question whether the trust is either wholly or predominantly for a charitable purpose or not. The trustees is given the power of deciding what 485 purpose is allowed to or like an object covered by the trust and how it is to be served by a diversion of trust properties and funds. If the trustee is given the power to determine the proportion of such diversion	 as he is given here	 the trust could not be said to be wholly charitable. He could divert as much as to make the charitable part or aspect	 if any	 purely illusory. Indeed	 this was the law even before the qualifying words introduced by the 1961 Act. [See: East India Industries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income tax	 Madras(1)	 Commissioner of Income tax	 Madras vs Andhra Chamber of Commerce(2)	 Md. Ibrahim Riza vs Commissioner of Income tax	 Nagpur(3)]. Such a "trust" would be of doubtful validity	 but I refrain from further comment or any pronouncement upon the validity of such a trust as that was neither a question referred to the High Court in this case nor argued anywhere. The amendment of the 1961 Act considered by us compels closer scrutiny of deeds of ostensibly charitable trusts with a view to discovering their real purposes by analysing the effects of their terms and what they permit. It narrows the scope of exemption from income tax granted at least under the last and widest category of charitable trusts mentioned in Section 2(15) of the Act as was held in Commissioner of Income tax	 West Bengal II vs Indian Chamber of Commerce(4). We are in agreement with the view expressed in the Tribune case (supra) to the extent that we think that a trust such as the one considered there does not	 just like the trust before us	 fall within the category of education	 as such	 mentioned in the statutory elucidation of charity	 which was repeated in the 1961 Act	 with an added qualification of the last and widest category. Although the term "education"	 as used in Section 2(15) of the Act	 seems wider and more comprehensive than education through educational institutions	 such as Universities	 whose income is given an exemption from income tax separately under Section 10(22)	 provided the educational institution concerned does not exist "for purposes of profit"	 yet	 it seems to me that the educational effects of a newspaper or publishing business are only indirect	 problematical	 and quite incidental so that	 without imposing any condition or qualification upon the nature of information to be disseminated or material to be published	 the mere publication of news or views cannot be said to serve a purely or even a predominantly educational purpose in its ordinary and usual sense. The purposes with which we are concerned no doubt parade under the guise or caption of "education". They are found stated in clause 2(c) of the deed. This clause speaks of a supply of "organs of educated public opinion" to Kanada speaking people and of a presumed need for "useful" information and "ventilation" of views on "matters of public utility". It is left to the Trustee to decide which class of people is "educated" so as to be permitted to voice its views through these organs. He is also to decide what is "useful" and what is harmful and what is a matter of "general public utility". If	 as it seems to 486 us to be the position here	 the Trustee is the sole judge of how these presumed needs are to be satisfied	 he could certainly cater for them in a manner which could be considered debased or offensive by people of good taste with a proper sense of values. I do not mean to cast the slightest reflection on the manner in which the appellant trustee conducts his business or on the quality or value of materials found in his newspapers or other publications. We have no evidence and no finding on these aspects of the case before us. All I would like to point out here is that the trust leaves it entirely to the sweet will of the sole trustee to decide all questions relating to policy or the way in which the needs mentioned in clause 2(c) are to be met. Provision for their satisfaction could be made in a manner which could be very lucrative. This is the most relevant consideration in ascertaining the purpose of the trust from the point of view of profit making. Judging from the facts set out in the trust deed itself	 the sole trustee had managed to make the satisfaction of the needs mentioned above a highly profitable business. The deed puts no condition upon the conduct of the newspaper and publishing business from which we could infer that it was to be on "no profit and no loss" basis. I mention this as the learned Counsel for the appellant repeatedly asserted that this was the really basic purpose and principle for the conduct of the business of the trust before us. This assertion seems to be based on nothing more substantial than that the trust deed itself does not expressly make profit making the object of the trust. But	 as I have already indicated	 the absence of such a condition from the trust deed could not determine its true character. That character is determined for more certainly and convincingly by the absence of terms which could eliminate or prevent profit making from becoming the real or dominant purpose of the trust. It is what the provisions of the trust make possible or permit coupled with what had been actually done as without any illegality in the way of profit making	 in the case before us	 under the cover of the provisions of the deed	 which enable us to decipher the meaning and determine the predominantly profit making character of the trust. For the reasons given above	 I think that judgment of the Mysore High Court must be and is affirmed	 but	 in the circumstances of the case	 the parties will bear their own costs. V.M.K. Appeals dismissed.

Summary:
Section 2(15) of the Income tax Act provides that 'charitable purpose ' includes relief of the poor	 education medical relief. and the advancement of any other object of general public utility. The appellant is a sole trustee of the "Loka Shikshana Trust"	 holding properties mentioned in a schedule attached to a deed of trust executed on 19 2 1962 by himself purporting to re declare a trust of 15 7 1935. The total assets of the earlier trust of 1935 consisted of a sum of Rs. 4308.109 only. Under the provisions the earlier trust of the trustee had carried on a lucrative business of printing at Belgaum	 and	 thereafter	 he started publishing a daily newspaper. The value of the redeclared trust of 1962 stood at Rs. 2	97	658/ . Clause 2 of the trust deed provided that the object of the Trust shall be to educate the people of India in general and of Karnatak in particular by (a) establishing conducting and helping directly or indirectly institutions calculated to educate the people by spread of knowledge on all matters of general interest and welfare; (b) founding and running reading rooms and libraries and keeping and conducting printing houses and publishing or aiding the publication of books	 booklets	 leaflets	 pamphlets	 magazines etc		 in Kannada and other languages	 all these activities being started	 conducted and carried on with the object of educating the people; (c) supplying the Kannada speaking people with an organ or organs of educated public opinion and conducting journals in Kannada and other language for the dissemination of useful news and information and for the ventilation of public opinion on matters of general public utility; and (d) helping directly or indirectly societies and institutions which have all or any of the aforesaid objects in view. The Income tax officer sent a communication to the trust on April 27	 1963 to the effect that	 since the only activity of the trust was printing	 publication	 and sale of newspaper. weekly and monthly journal	 the trust carried on an activity for profit. The claim of the sole trustee was rejected	 and	 having been unsuccessful through out the appellant has preferred this appeal after certification of the case under section 261 of the Income tax Act	 1961. Dismissing the appeal	 ^ HELD: (Per H. R. Khanna and A. C. Gupta	 JJ.) (1) It is not correct to say that the word "profit" in section 2(15) of the Act means private profit. The word used in the definition provision is profit and not private profit and it would not be permissible to read in the definition the word 462 "private" as qualifying profit even though such word is not there. There is also no apparent justification or cogent reason for placing much a construction on the word "profit". [472B] The words "general public utility" contained in the definition of charitable purpose are very wide. These words exclude objects of private gain [472C] All India Spinners ' Association vs Commissioner of Income tax	 	 relied on. It is also not correct to say that the newly added words "not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit" merely qualify and affirm what was the position as it obtained under the definition in the Act of 1922. If the legislature intended that the concept of charitable purpose should be the same under the Act of 1961 as it was in the Act of 1922	 there was no necessity for it to add the new words in the definition. The earlier definition did not involve any ambiguity. and the position in law was clear and admitted of no doubt after the pronoumcement of the Judicial Committee in the Tribune case and in the case of All India Spinners ' Association. If despite that fact	 the legislature added new words in the definition of charitable purpose	 it would be contrary to all rules of construction to ignore the impact or the newly added words and to so construe the definition as it the newly added words were either not there or were intended to be otiose and redundant. [47CC E] (ii) The sense in which the word "education" has been used in section 2(15) is the systematic instruction	 schooling	 or training given to the young in preparation for the work of life. It also connotes the whole course of scholastic instruction which a person has received. The word "education" has	 not been used in that wide and extended sense according to which every acquisition of further knowledge constitutes education. According to this wide and extended sense	 travelling is education	 because as a result of travelling you acquire fresh knowledge. Likewise	 if you read newspapers and magazines	 see pictures	 visit art galleries	 museums and zoos	 you thereby add to your knowledge. Again	 when your grow up and have dealings with other people	 some of whom are not straight	 you learn by experience and thus add to your knowledge of the ways of the world. If you are not careful	 your wallet is liable to be stolen or you are liable to be cheated by some unscrupulous is liable to be stolen or you are liable to be cheated by some unscrupulous person. The thief who removes your wallet and the swindler who cheats you teach you a lesson and in the process make you wiser though poorer. If you visit a night club	 you get acquainted wit and add to your knowledge about some to the not much revealed realities and mysteries of life. All this in a way is education in the great school of life. But	 that is not the sense in which the word "education" is used in clause (15) of section 2. What education connotes in that clause is the process of training and developing the knowledge	 skill mind	 and character of students by formal schooling. [469C F] (iii) The fact that the appellant trust is engaged in the business of printing and publication of newspaper and journals and the further fact that the afore said activity vields 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." [471C D] In re The Trustees of the 'Tribune 	 State of Gujarat vs M/s Raipur Mfg. Co.	 [1967] 1 S.C.R. 618	 and Commissioner of Income tax vs Lahore Electric Supply Co. Ltd.	 	 referred to. (i) It has been declared repeatedly by the Courts	 even before the addition of the words "not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit" to the definition of "charitab1e purpose". that activities motivated by private profit making fell outside the concept of charity altogether. It is more reasonable to infer that the words used clearly imposed a new qualification on public utilities entitled to exemption. It was obvious that	 unless such a limitation was introduced	 the fourth and last category would become too wide to prevent 463 its abuse. Wide words so used could have been limited in Scope by judicial interpretations ejusdem generis so as to confine the last category to objects similar to those in the previous categories and also subject to a dominant concept of charity which must govern all the four categories. But	 the declaration of law by the Privy Council	 in the Tribune case had barred this method of limiting an obviously wide category of profitable activities of general public utility found entitled to exemption. Hence	 the only other way of cutting down the wide sweep of objects of "general public utility" entitled to exemption was by legislation. This	 therefore	 was the method Parliament adopted as is clear from the speech of the Finance Minister who introduced the amendment in Parliament. [482F H] Income Tax Commissioners vs Pemsel	 ; 	 583; Morice vs Bishop of Durham	 ; All India Spinners ' Association vs Commissioner of Income Tax	 Bombay	 1944(12) ITR 482	 486; commissioner of Income Tax	 Madras vs Andhra Chamber of Commerce	 1965(55) I.T.R. 722	 732; In re Grove Gredy 	 582; Cape Brandy Syndicate vs I.R.C. 	 71; Rt. Hon 'ble Jerald Lord Strickland vs Carmelo Mifud Bonnici	 A.I.R. 1935 P.C. 34; The Englishman Ltd. vs Engineering Mazdoor Sang & Anr.	 A.I.R. 1975 S.C. p. 946 @ 949; Commissioner of Income tax Gujarat vs Vadilal Lallubhai	 1972 (86) I.T.R. p. 2; Commissioner of Income tax vs Sadora Devi	 1957 (32) I.T.R. 615 @ 627 [1958] 1 I.S.C. 1 and In re the Tribune	 	 referred to. (ii) If the profits must necessarily feed a charitable purpose	 under the terms of the trust	 the mere fact that the activities of the trust yield profit will not alter the charitable character of the trust. The test is the genuineness of the purpose tested by the obligation created to spend the money exclusively or essentially on "charity". If that obligation is there	 the income becomes entitled to exemption. That is the most reliable test. The governing idea of charity must qualify purpose of every category enumerated in section 2(15) of the Act of 1961. [483 C D] (iii) Although the term 'education '	 as used in section 2(15) of the Act	 seems wider and more comprehensive than education through educational institutions	 such as Universities	 whose income is given an exemption from income tax separately under section 10(22) of the Act	 provided the educational institution concerned does not exist "for purposes of profit"	 yet the educational effects of a newspaper or publishing business are only indirect	 problematical and quite incidental so that	 without imposing any condition or qualification upon the nature of information to be disseminated or material to be published	 the mere publication of news or views cannot be said to serve a purely or even predeminantly educational purpose in its ordinary and usual sense. Judging from the facts set out in the trust deed itself	 the sole trustee had managed to make the satisfaction of the needs mentioned in clause 2(c) a highly profitable business. The deed puts no condition upon the conduct of the newspaper and publishing business from which one could infer that is was to be on "no profit and no loss" basis. The High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the appellant is not entitled to claim exemption from income tax. [485 E G	 486 D] East India Industries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income tax Madras	 ; Commissioner of Income tax	 Madras vs Andhra Chamber of Commerce	 ; Md. Ibrahim Riza vs Commissioner of Income tax	 Nagpur	 (1930) L.R. I.A. 260 and Commissioner of Income tax	 West Bengla II vs Indian Chamber of Commerce	 ARGUMENTS For the appellant (1) The objects clause of the Trust is so worded as to make it clear that the whole and sole object of the Trust is education of the people of India 464 in general and of Karnatak in particular by the four means or modes set out h in that clause. Those four means or modes are not separate objects of the Trust but are merely the instrumentalities prescribed by the Settlor for achieving the specified object of education. Even assuming for the purpose of argument that sub clauses (a) to (d) of clause 4 of the Trust Deed are separate and distinct objects of the Trust	 clause (c) which covers a newspaper or a journal is itself an object falling within the category of "education". (2) The words added in the 1961 Act "not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit" go only with the last head viz "any other object of general public utility" and not with the first three heads. This is put beyond doubt by the comma which appears after each of the first three heads	 there being no comma after the fourth head. (3) The present case falls within the second head of "charitable purpose"	 viz. education. The ruling of the Privy Council in the Tribune case does not apply to the facts of the present case. (4) Assuming that the case does not fall within the category of "education" it falls within the last head "any other object of general public utility	 and the qualifying words "not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit" are satisfied. First the word "profit" means private gain	 and the qualifying words merely say expressly what was implicit in the 1922 Act at 423	 and at 488). Even assuming the word "profit" covers profit for the Trust	 involving no private gain	 the qualifying words are still satisfied. They require that the object of the Trust should not involve	 i.e. entail that the trustees should carry on the activity for profit. No such condition about making profit is imposed by the trust deed. That profit may result from the activities of the Trust in a particular year is wholly irrelevant. Profit making is not the motive of the Trust. (5) Provisions of section ll of the Act clearly reveal that it is implicit in the very scheme of the Act that a business undertaking can be held in trust for an object of general public utility. For the respondent (i) The decision of the Privy Council in the Tribune case squarely applies to the facts of the present case; (ii) For ascertaining that true meaning of the expression "not involving the carrying on of an activity for profit" it was not only permissible but only proper for the Courts to refer to parliamentary debates and other proceedings of the legislature. (iii) Where a business undertaking is held as property of the Trust and income resulting therefrom is wholly applied for charitable purposes such as education	 medical relief of the poor	 or for any other object of general public utility but with which object the production or income is not linked it would be still exempt. But if that income is utilised only for the purposes of advancing the very object from the advancement of which it is derived it would cease to be exempt. The means and processes adopted by the Trustee for the advancement of the object were such as rendered the object itself as non charitable. (iv) The expression "activity for profit" was much wider in cope than merely a business activity. The legislature had intentionally used the expression "activity" instead of business because in some cases the income produced from the activity may not be legally assessable under the provisions of the Income tax Act	 1961 under the head "Income	 profits and gains of business" (Section 28). The expression 'activity for profit" in the context meant activity for profit making; (v) Since the advancement of education was being achieved by means involving the carrying on of an activity for profit	 the Trust would still be denied exemption. In other words	 the qualifying words added to the definition at the end did not govern merely the last category of charity i.e. the object of general public utility but equally governed the earlier three well known categories namely medical relief	 relief of the poor	 and education. The effect of the qualifying words "not involving the carrying on an activity for profit" was to deny exemption to trusts which carried on a profit making activity for advancing the object of general public utility.