Commissioner of Income Tax vs Madras Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Sethuraman, J.—These are references of the following question arising out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year

1967-68 to 1969-1970 :

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the object of the assessee

constituted ""Charitable purpose"" as defined in Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and that its income is exempt u/s 11(1) of the same

Act?

The assessee is a chamber of Commerce incorporated under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, with a view to bring together within its fold

persons, firms, limited companies and organisations pursuing and engaged in trade and commerce and or industry within the States of Southern

India with a view to co-ordinate their efforts to improve their business interests and to establish closer contacts among themselves and to help them

in formulating suitable measures for promoting their common good. There are other objects of an incidental nature. The income and profit of the

Association is to be applied solely towards the promotion and objects of the Chamber and no portion thereof is to be paid directly or indirectly by

way of dividend or bonus to the members. The Association derived income from securities, dividends etc. and also from arbitration fees and fees

for issuing certificates. The question arose in the course of these assessments whether the assessee was exempt u/s 11 read with s. 2(15) of the

Act. The Income Tax Officer assessed the income without any discussion of the allowability or otherwise of the exemption u/s 11. The Appellate

Assistant Commissioner, on appeal, upheld the assessment following the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the CIT v. Indian Chamber of

Commerce. On further appeal, the Tribunal held following another decision of the Kerala High Court in CIT v. The Indian Chamber of Commerce

that the assessee''s claim for exemption was to succeed. The Revenue has brought this matter on reference to this court on the question set out

already.

It was common ground before the Tribunal, as stated in paragraph 4 of the Tribunal''s order, that the assessee, which was a society registered

under the Societies Registration Act, was founded for the promotion and protection of trade and commerce and that, therefore, the objects of the

assessee were of general public utility within the meaning of s. 2(15) of the Act. The decision of the Calcutta High Court, which was followed by

the AAC, and the decision of the Kerala High Court which was followed by the Appellate Tribunal, were all considered by the Supreme Court in

the Indian Chamber of Commerce v. CIT, Bengal.

The Kerala decision was reversed and the decision was affirmed. Subsequently the Supreme Court in the case of the Addl. CIT, Gujarat,

Ahmedabad v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association, Surat has dissented from the judgment in the Indian Chamber of Commerce v.

CIT, West Bengal-II The latest decision of the Supreme Court has been considered by us in T.C. No. 352 of 1974 and applied in the judgment

pronounced today.

The first point to be considered in the present case is whether the assessee is pursuing an object of general public utility. In the light of the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce it has to be held that the assessee''s objects are such as to subserve

the general public. Therefore, the assessee would fall within the main part of definition of s. 2(15). The only further question that would require

consideration would be whether the Association is carrying on any activity for profit, so as to fall with the word ""exclusion"" in s. 2(15). There is

nothing to show that the assessee, in giving assistance by way of arbitration or issuing certificates of origin in respect of goods, was carrying on any

activity for profit. The dominant purpose of the assessee Chamber is only to pursue an object of general public utility.

The services rendered in connection with arbitration or issue of certificates are only incidental. The income admitted for 1967-68 from these

activities comes to Rs. 1,442/- for 1968-69 Rs. 172/- and for 1969-70 Rs. 667/-. These figures are eloquent to show that the assessee had not

indulged in any activity for profit. It is, therefore, manifest that the assessee is clearly entitled to the exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The question is

answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.