DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. BHARAT DIAMOND BOURSE

CIVIL APPEAL No. 8211/2001Supreme Court2002 INSC 52206 December 2002Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: RUMA PAL, B.N. SRIKRISHNA OF21 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Bharat Diamond Bourse, a company limited by guarantee, was registered under the Income Tax Act, 1961, claiming exemption under Section 11 for assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91. The Assessing Officer denied exemption, citing that the institution's objects were not charitable and that it had breached Section 13 conditions. The appellate authority upheld this. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals, a decision affirmed by the High Court. The Revenue appealed to the Supreme Court. A key factual dispute involved whether Bharat Shah, a signatory to the Memorandum of Association, was a 'founder' and whether the assessee lent money to him without adequate security and interest.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals. Regarding the first issue, the Court held that the dominant purpose of the assessee institution was charitable, as evidenced by its impact on diamond export trade and increased foreign exchange earnings, and thus it was validly recognized as an institution established for charitable purposes under Section 2(15). The Tribunal and High Court were correct in this regard. However, on the second and third issues, the Court disagreed with the High Court and Tribunal. It held that Bharat Shah, along with others, was a founder of the institution as he was a subscriber to its Memorandum of Association, responsible for its incorporation. The Court found that a substantial amount of Rs. 70 lakhs was lent to Bharat Shah during the relevant assessment years without adequate security or interest. Consequently, the assessee lost the benefit of exemption under Section 11 by falling within the mischief of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with Section 13(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The orders of the Tribunal and High Court were set aside, and the view of the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was affirmed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the dominant purpose of the assessee institution is charitable, entitling it to exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as per Section 2(15). 2. Whether Bharat Shah, being a signatory to the Memorandum of Association, qualifies as a 'founder' of the institution under Section 13(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether the assessee lost the benefit of exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to lending income to Bharat Shah without adequate security and interest, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with Section 13(3)(a). Revenue's contentions: The assessee's activities fall outside the definition of charitable purpose, disentitling it to Section 11 benefits. Furthermore, lending income to the founder without appropriate security leads to the loss of exemption under Section 11. Assessee's contentions: The Supreme Court should not disturb the findings of fact by the Tribunal and High Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. Bharat Shah, merely a signatory, cannot be considered a founder.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(15),Section 11,Section 13,Section 13(1)(c)(ii),Section 13(3)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX A v. M/S. BHARAT DIAMOND BOURSE DECEMBER I 6, 2002 [RUMA PAL AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] B Income Tax Act, 1961; Sections 2(15), II, 13 & 260(A): Charitable Institution-Benefits of exemption under Section I/- Entitlement to-Held, since the dominant purpose of establishment of the C assessee-lnstitution being charitable, assessee entitled to benefits under Section I I of the Act.

Charitable Institutions-Lending of money to its founder without security-Benefits of exemption under Section I I-Effect on-Held, since assessee lent certain income to prohibited category of person without adequate D security and interest, benefit of exemption under Section I I was lost in view of provisions under Section I 3(/)(c)(ii) of the Act.

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136-Appeal-Finding of facts recorded by Subordinate Courts-Interference-Generally finding of facts by E Courts below not disturbed unless it is perverse-Under the facts and circumstances of the case, correct finding of facts recorded by revenue authorities were reversed by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court on perverse reasoning-Hence set aside.

Words & Phrases: 'Founder', 'Fo

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 2(15)

All 2,855 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(15) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →