COMMISSIONER OF GIFT TAX vnT. vs SUNDARAM IYENGAR and SONS LTD.

N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. :

In pursuance of the directions of this Court dt. 19th December, 1983, the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law under s. 26(1) of the

GT Act, 1958 for our consideration :

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the gift-tax assessment made on the assessee in

respect of the donations of Rs. 1,25,000 made to M/s Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee, Mysore State Congress Committee and All India

Congress Committee ?

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to cl. 24 of the memorandum and articles of association, the

Tribunal was right in holding that the donations have been made under the authority of the said clause in the memorandum and articles of

association and, therefore, the gift is exempt under s. 5(1)(xiv) of the GT Act in the light of the Boards Circular No. 1-GT dt. 5th January, 1960 ?

Whether the Tribunals view that the Boards circular No. 1-GT dt. 5th January, 1960 would be applicable to the assessees case is sustainable in

law especially when the same was withdrawn by the Boards instruction No. 923 dt. 9th June, 1972 ?

The assessment year involved is 1968-69 and the assessee during the accounting year relevant for the assessment year made various donations

and charitable payments which included Rs. 1,25,000 to Congress committees. The said amount of Rs. 1,25,000 was made up of three items viz.

Rs. 50,000 to Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee, Rs. 50,000 to Mysore Congress Committee and Rs. 25,000 to the Chairman, Reception

Committee of the All India Congress Committee. The GTO while completing the assessment under the provisions of the GT Act held that there

was no nexus between the donation made by the assessee and the business carried on by the assessee and, therefore, the assessee was not eligible

to claim exemption provided under s. 5(1)(xiv) of the GT Act. The CIT(A) on appeal preferred by the assessee confirmed the assessment made

by the GTO. The assessee went on appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal relying upon a circular dt. 5th January, 1960 published in pages

1057-1058 of Vol. I Taxmanns Direct Tax Circulars (1980 Edn.), held that the assessee had satisfied the conditions contained in the said circular

and the benevolent Board circular is binding on the ITO and the assessee was entitled to claim exemption on the basis of the Board circular. In this

view of the matter, the Tribunal did not consider the question regarding the fulfilment of the condition under s. 5(1)(v) or (iv) of the Act.

The Revenue challenged the order of the Tribunal and on the basis of the directions of this Court, the questions of law set out supra have been

referred to us.

Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned counsel for the Revenue, has forcibly argued that the order of the Tribunal is erroneous in law as the Tribunal failed to

take notice of the fact that the circular would apply only in the case of gift made by a company to a political party under the authority of a specific

clause in the memorandum and articles of association of the company and in the instant case, it was only a general clause and the Tribunal is not

correct in holding that the circular would be applicable to the facts of this case. Learned counsel for the Revenue further contended that in any

event the circular is not binding on this Court and in support of his submission, he relied upon the decisions in Venugopala Constructions and

Others Vs. Income Tax Officer and Another, , Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. V.T. Ramalingam and others, and CGT vs. P. Gheevarghese,

Travancore Timbers & Products (1971) 83 ITR 403 and submitted that the conditions prescribed in s. 5(1)(xiv) of the Act are not satisfied and

therefore, the assessee was not eligible to claim exemption. He also submitted that the Board circular which was relied upon by the Tribunal

referred to an earlier circular which was not withdrawn by the Board and the earlier circular would alone apply to the facts of the case. On the

basis of the earlier circular, the assessee was not entitled to claim exemption under the Act.

Mr. S. A. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the assessee fulfilled the conditions prescribed in

the Board circular relied upon by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the donation was made by the assessee to a

political party on the basis of the specific clause in the memorandum and articles of association of the company and therefore, the assessee was

entitled to the benefit of the said circular.

We find there is considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue. The Board circular dt. 5th January, 1960 in terms,

would apply only where a gift was made to a political party by a company under the authority of a specific clause in the memorandum and articles

of association of the company. The Board circular also referred to the case of Jayantilal R. Kotecha vs. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (1956) 27

Comp. Cas. 604 and the decision of the Bombay High Court makes it clear that there was a specific clause in the memorandum and articles of

association of the company to make donation to a political party. Considering the circular of the board in the light of the decision of the Bombay

High Court, it is clear that the Board circular was intended to apply only to cases where there is a specific clause in the memorandum and articles

of association of the Company. However, we are of the view that it is unnecessary to pursue the matter further as we are of the opinion that even

though we may hold that the Board circular is not applicable to the facts of the case, we may have to remit the matter to the Tribunal to consider

the applicability of s. 5(1)(xiv) of the GT Act as well as s. 5(1)(v) of the Act as the Tribunal has not considered the question regarding the fulfilment

of the said condition for the assessee to claim exemption. On perusing the order of assessment, we find that the tax effect is only Rs. 11,500 and

the assessment year involved is 1968-69. We have also noticed that the Board circular dt. 5th January, 1960 was subsequently withdrawn by the

Board in the year 1972. Since the Board itself has withdrawn the earlier circular and there is a statutory prohibition against the companies making

donation in favour of the political parties, we are of the opinion that in view of the small tax effect involved in the case, it is not necessary to remit

the matter to the Tribunal to consider whether the conditions contained in s. 5(1)(xiv) are fulfilled in the instant case. Though we are of the view that

the Tribunal may not be quite correct in holding that the Board circular would apply to the case of the company making donations to political

parties by virtue of the general power conferred by the memorandum and articles of association, still in view of the negligible tax effect involved in

the case and in view of the fact that the matter is not likely to recur by the reason of the withdrawal of the earlier circular by the Board, we are of

the view that the order of the Tribunal need not be disturbed in this case. Though we technically answer the questions of law referred to us against

the Revenue, it does not mean that we are upholding the order of the Tribunal on the merits of the case. In this view of the matter, we answer the

questions of law in the affirmative and against the Department subject to the observations made by us.