THE TRUSTEES OF THE CHARLTY FUND, ESPLANADE ROAD, FORT, BOMBAY vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY

CIVIL APPEAL No. 396/1957Supreme Court1959 INSC 6005 May 1959Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: SUDHI RANJAN DAS, NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI, M. HIDAYATULLAH13 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The appellants, trustees of "The Charity Fund Founded by Sir Sassoon David, Baronet of Bombay," sought exemption from income tax for the trust's income under Section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The trust deed, executed on June 8, 1922, stipulated that the net income was to be applied for various charitable purposes, including relief of the poor, maintenance of hospitals and schools, relief of distress from natural calamities, care of animals, advancement of religion, and other community-beneficial purposes. Crucially, provisos mandated preference for poor and indigent relations or members of Sir Sassoon David's family and required at least half the income to be applied for the benefit of the Jewish community of Bombay. The High Court had ruled that the trust was not wholly or partly for public charitable purposes involving public utility, answering the referred questions in the negative.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the trust fund was indeed held for public charitable purposes and its income was exempt from taxation under Section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Court found that each of the primary purposes outlined in the trust deed, including the relief of the poor, inherently involved an element of public utility. The Court reasoned that the validity of a public charitable trust is assessed at the primary stage of eligibility. While the provisos mandated a preference for the founder's relations or family members and a specific allocation for the Jewish community, this did not invalidate the trust. The Court applied the principle from In re Koettgan's Will Trusts, stating that the direction to prefer a limited class of beneficiaries from a broader primary class does not affect the validity of the primary trust. The Court concluded that the trust satisfied the requirement of being of a sufficiently public nature. Therefore, the negative answer given by the High Court to the first question was unsupported, and the question should have been answered in the affirmative. The second question did not arise in light of this finding.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the income from the trust fund is exempt from taxation under Section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as being held for public charitable purposes. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that each primary purpose listed in the trust deed, particularly the relief of the poor, inherently involved an element of public utility, thus constituting a valid charitable trust. They contended that the preference given to the founder's relations or family members under the provisos did not detract from the public nature of the trust, as these individuals were to be selected from a broader class of beneficiaries. They relied on the principle that the validity of a public charitable trust is determined at the primary stage of eligibility. Revenue's contentions: The revenue, as reflected in the High Court's decision, contended that the trust fund could not be considered as held wholly or partly for religious or charitable purposes involving an element of public utility, likely due to the preferential treatment of the founder's family and community-specific allocations.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 4(3)(i),Section 66(1),Section 66(A)(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

(2) S.C.R. SUPHEME COURT RE.POH,TS 923 with proper questions, and it seems th<tt similar ques- tions on these aud other points were not put to the witness out of deference (as it is now suggested) to the ruling of the Court.

The accused c<rn only blame themselves, if they did not.

The learned Judges of the High Court r1 !led out from their consideration that these two cirnumstances made it possible for the witnesses to recognise the accused, but held that there was ample opportunity even other- wise for the witnesses to do so.

The High Court was justified in so doing, and there being ample evidence on which they could come to the conclusion that the witnesses had, in fact, recognised the accused, it must inevitably be regarded as one of fact in regard to which this Court does not interfere.

Since 110 other point was argued, the appeal must fail, and we agree that it be dismissed.

Appeal dismis8ed. THE TH,U~TEES OJ!' THE CIIARlTY HUND, ESPLANADE l~OAD, .FORT, BOMBAY v. THE COMMU3SIONEL~ OF INCO:'vlE-TAX, BOMBAY (S. g, DAS, C. J., N. H. BHAGWA'l'l aml M. HrnAYA'I'ULLAH, JJ.)

Incumc-tax--Public charitable trust--Exemption- -Test-Indian Income-tax Act, r922

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 66(1)

All 184 judgments and leading authorities on Section 66(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →