Pathak, J. - (1.) These appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in references disposed of by it under S. 256 of the Act.
(2.) The appellant is the Dharmaposhnam Company, Irinjalakuda. It is an association constituted under a license issued in January, 1931 by the then Government of Cochin and registered with limited liability under S. 26 (1) of the Indian Companies Act 1913 as applied to Cochin. The appellant was governed by a Memorandum of Association, Cl. (3) of which provided:- "3. The objects of the company are: (a) To raise funds by conducting kuries with company as foreman, receiving donations and subscriptions, by lending money on interest and by such other means as the company deems fit. (b) To do the needful for the promotion of charity, education, industries etc. and public good. (c) For carrying on the business of the company and for the advancement of the purpose mentioned above in so far as is appropriate, to construct buildings or to purchase or take on lease or for hire movable or immovable properties. (d) To encourage others to form other institution with the purpose of acting in accordance with the objects of the company. (e) To do all such things as are conducive to the fulfillment of the above objects. (f) To lend money on interest to one or more solvent persons individually or severally on the security of ornaments lended properties or other forms of security fixed by the Directors and to borrow money to meet the need of the company and to run other industries." Article 58 of the Articles of Association read:- "The profit of the company shall not be divided among the members. The profit left after meeting the expenses of the company will be utilised for promoting education, industry, social welfare and such other purposes of common good as are resolved by the general meeting."
(3.) During the assessment years 1962-63 to 1965-66, the appellant derived income from property, money lending and business in kuries or chit funds. The assessee claimed exemption from tax of the income from kuries and money lending under S. 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with varying success before the income-tax authorities. It is sufficient to point out that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to exemption. At the instance of the appellant, the Tribunal made a reference to the High Court for its opinion on the following question of law:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income of the assessee for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1965-66 was exempt under the provisions of S. 11 of the income-tax Act -;