TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat your petitioners are conducting courses which have no connection with the objects of the society. 2. That without prejudice to the aforesaid ground of appeal, the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 11(4A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are (sic) applicable to your petitioners and are entitled to the benefit of the relief provided by the said provisions. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of the material placed before us and precedents relied upon. The assessee is an association of per sons. As per the memorandum of association, the assessee-society was constituted for the dissemination of knowledge and education and the pro motion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ganization of delegations from one country to the other ; (j) the arrangement of suitable recreational facilities and social contacts between the people of India and the United States of America. The society comprises different classes of membership. The details of the same are as under : Classes of membership and their entrance and subscription Patrons : (a) Individuals Rs. 5,000 (b) Corporate Rs. 10,000 Life members Individuals only Rs. 2,500 Ordinary members Rs. 200 per annum Entrance fee Rs. 200 one time Corporate members Rs. 1,500 per annum Entrance fee Rs. 500 one time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 20 lakhs from sponsorship and interest income. This has got no link with the objects or the activities of the society. On this factual backdrop the Assessing Officer held that the object of the assessee-society cannot be construed to be the object of general public utility ; as such the benefit claimed under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was denied. Further, in regard to the various courses conducted by the assessee-society, it was held to be business activity. The case was examined on the touchstone of section 11(4A) of the Act and the benefit claimed under section 11 was denied. The following academic programmes were carried out by the assesseesociety during the relevant assessment year : I. Management seminars 1. Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al to the community not falling under any of the preceding heads. In re, White ; White v. White [1893] 2 Ch. 41 (CA) broadened the base and laid down in general terms any mode of promoting the welfare of mankind would be a charitable object. As per the prescription of section 2(15) of the Act, charitable purpose includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, and the advancement of any other object of general public utility. Even if an object or purpose may not be regarded as charitable in its popular signification as not tending to give relief to the poor or for advancement of education or medical relief, it would still be included in the expression charitable purpose if it advances an object of general public utility. The la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e latter case not. In the present case we find that the dominant object was to impart education. As such, in our opinion, the management of seminars and class-room programmes as conducted by the assessee-society could clearly be construed to be for educational purposes. Adverting now to the concept of general public utility, we find that general means pertaining to a whole class ; public means the body of people at large ; and the word utility signifies usefulness. Therefore, the advancement of any object of benefit to the public or a section of the public as distinguished from an individual or a group of individuals, would be of charitable purpose. The expression any other object of general public utility is of the widest connota ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of aged, impotent and poor people . . . . As per literal interpretation of the statute, in order to avail of the benefit of charity one must qualify all the conditions laid down, i.e., he should be aged, impotent and poor. But this interpretation is far from pragmatism. The words aged, impotent and poor ought not to be construed conjunctively, so as to deny benefit separately to aged people, impotent people and poor people. This aspect was considered in the case of In re Robinson ; Davis v. Robinson [1950] 2 All ER 1148 (Ch D). It was held in the said case that the words aged, impotent and poor in the statute of Elizabeth should be read disjunctively so that aged people need not also be poor to come within the ambit purview, and scope o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
