THANTHI TRUST Vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions have been filed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash Circular No. 372 (see [1984] 146 ITR (St.) 9), dated December 8, 1983, issued by the Central Board of Director Taxes and the orders of the second respondent dated July 28, 1988, February 22, 1989, June 30, 1989, June 30, 1990, March 21, 1991, March 20, 1992, February 22, 1992 and April 19, 1993, denying exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, to the petitioner-trust for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1991-92, respectively, and to direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner's claim for exemption under section 11 of the Act, independent of Circular No. 372 (see [1984] 146 ITR (St.) 9), dated December 8, 1983.

(2.) THE petitioner-trust was created under an instrument of declaration of trust on March 1, 1954, for the purpose of establishing the Tamil daily ("Daily Thanthi") by the founder of the said newspaper one Sri S. B. Aditanar, who was carrying on the business of printing and publishing the said newspaper as the sole proprietor since 1943. THE petitioner-trust is an assessee on the file of the second respondent Income-tax Officer in P.A. No. 47-005-AZ-5117.

(3.) IN the course of assessment for the years 1979-80 to 1983-84, the respondent raised on objection regarding the claim to exemption under section 11 of the Act, on the ground that by virtue of section 13(1)(bb) of the Act, the trust is not entitled to claim exemption. the petitioner herein contended that the Division Bench of this court has categorically held that the business is carried on in the course of actually carrying out the purpose of the trust and hence the petitioner is entitled to claim exemption. The respondent has rejected the contention holding that the decision of this court will not be applicable after introduction of section 13(1)(bb). On this ground, respondent No. 2 has passed orders for all the assessment years holding that the petitioners is not entitled to claim exemption.