SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(Cal) 277

High Court Of Calcutta
Dipak Kumar Sen, Shyamal Kumar Sen
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - Appellant
Versus
BIRLA CHARITY TRUST - Respondent
I. T. Reference 183  Of  1978
Decided On : 08/03/1987

Advocates Appeared:
A.C.MOITRA, A.K.DEY, R.N.Bagoria, S.K.BAGARIA, SUNIL

The meaning of the expressions "fund" and "invest" in Section 13(2)(h) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and their applicability in determining the exemption of a charitable trust under Section 11.

Headnote:

INCOME TAX - Section 11 - Exemption - Charitable trust - Shares received as donations - Whether funds invested in concern with substantial interest of persons specified in Section 13(3) - Meaning of "fund" and "invest" - Applicability of Section 13(2)(h) - Tribunal's decision upheld.

Fact of the Case:

The assessee, a charitable trust, received shares of a company as donations between 1956 and 1963. In the assessment year 1971-72, the assessee claimed exemption from income tax under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the dividend income from these shares. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim, holding that the shares were funds invested in a concern in which persons specified in Section 13(3) had a substantial interest, and therefore, the exemption under Section 11 was not available. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who allowed the exemption, holding that the investment in the shares was made by the donors and not by the assessee. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, which upheld the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, holding that the assessee was entitled to exemption under the second proviso to Section 13(1)(c).

Finding of the Court:

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to claim exemption under the second proviso to Section 13(1)(c) and that the provisions of Section 13(2)(h) were not applicable in this case. The Tribunal found that the shares were received by the assessee as donations and had not changed their character since the receipt thereof by the assessee.

Issues: 1. Whether the assessee was entitled to claim exemption under Section 11 in respect of the dividend income received from the shares donated to it. 2. Whether the provisions of Section 13(2)(h) were applicable in this case.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the expressions "fund" and "invest" in Section 13(2)(h) should be construed with reference to dictionaries, commercial parlance, and the context of the section itself. 2. The court held that the expression "funds" in Section 13(2)(h) means money in hand or cash, and "invest" connotes a positive act on the part of the trust whereby its funds are laid out or committed in a particular property or business or transaction with the object of earning profit or financial advantage or return. 3. The court held that the assessee did not deal with or commit or lay out any part of its existing assets to acquire the said shares and that apart from the acceptance by the assessee of the said shares, there was no decision or action on the part of the assessee. 4. The court held that the assessee was entitled to claim exemption under the second proviso to Section 13(1)(c) as the user or application of any property of the assessee for the benefit of persons referred to in Section 13(3), if any, occurred prior to June 1, 1970.

Final Decision: The court answered the question referred in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee. There was no order as to costs.

DIPAK KUMAR SEN, J.

( 1 ) THE material facts on record and the proceedings leading up to this reference are, inter alia, that Birla Charity Trust, the assessee, is a trust founded in 1920. It is not in dispute that the income of the assessee is spent for charitable purposes. Between 1956 and 1963, the assessee received from time to time ordinary shares of Jiyajee Rao Cotton Mills Ltd. ("the company"), from various parties aggregating 96,490 shares.

( 2 ) IN the assessment year 1971-72, the relevant accounting year ending on March 31, 1971, the assessee received dividends on the said shares amounting to Rs. 1,44,735. In its return of income as well as in its assessment, the assessee claimed that the said amount of Rs. 1,44,735 was not exigible to income-tax under the provisions of Section 13 (1) (c) (ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), read with the second proviso to the said section. The Income-tax Officer rejected the contentions of the assessee and held that the funds of the assessee remained invested in a concern in which the persons referred to in Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act, viz. , the settlor of the trust, the persons who had made a substantial contribution to the trust and/or their relatives had substantial interest in the company and, therefore, the income of the assessee by way of dividends from the said shares was not entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Act.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal from the assessment to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the contentions of the assessee and held that the investment in the instant case had been made by the donors and the donations were received by the assessee by 1963. It was held that as no funds of the assessee had been invested in the said shares and that as the assessee had received the shares themselves by way of donation, the provisions of Section 13 (2) (h) read with Section 13 (1) (c) had no application and that the dividend received by the assessee from the said shares was exempt from income-tax.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue before the Tribunal that as the assessee continued to hold the said shares even after April 1, 1971, the assessee ceased to be entitled to claim exemption from income-tax in respect of the dividends received from the said shares under Section 11 by reason of the provisions of Section 13 (2) (h ). It was submitted that the expression "fund" referred to in Section 13 (2) (h) would cover the said shares held by the assessee and, therefore, the Income-tax Officer was justified in holding that the said dividend was not exempt from income-tax under Section 11. At best, the assessee would be entitled to claim a benefit of exemption under Section 11 in respect of such dividend from the said shares received during the period prior to June 1, 1970, and not thereafter. It was submitted further that the assessee ought to have reinvested the amount represented by the said shares in some other concern to which the provisions of Section 13 (3) were not applicable.

( 5 ) IT was contended on behalf of the assessee before the Tribunal that the expressions "fund" and "invest" which were not defined in the Income-tax Act had to be construed with reference to their dictionary meaning. The meaning of the said words as given in the Chambers, Twentieth Century Dictionary, 1972 edition, the Concise Oxford Dictionary, 5th edn. and the Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 7th edition, were referred to and relied on.

( 6 ) IT was contended on behalf of the assessee that the assessee had received the said shares qua shares by way of donation. The shares were neither funds nor did they continue to remain invested in the company within the meaning of Section 13 (2) (h ). It was submitted that no fund, property or income of the a



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top