Chakravartti, C.J. - (1.) This Reference involves but a short point and to answer even that point has become comparatively easy by reason of a concession properly and readily made by Mr. Meyer.
(2.) The assessee is a Trust represented by its trustees. It was created by a private limited company on 19-1-1944, when certain shares of certain public limited companies of the value of RS. 7,79,045/- were settled with three named trustees with directions to hold them upon trust to pay and app}y the income for the advancement of such charitable purpose or purposes as the trustees might deem to be the most deserving of support and at such times and in such manner as they might in their discretion determine. I am only paraphrasing the relevant clause of the Trust Deed which will have to be set out in extenso. After the creation of the Trust, the trustees received payments of dividend on the shares which constituted the Trust Fund, but the companies which paid the dividend did so after making the usual deductions of income-tax. Thereafter the assessee claimed from the Department refund of the tax so deducted on the ground that the property held by it was held wholly for charitable purposes and, accordingly, the income derived therefrom was exempt from taxation under Section 4(3) (i), Income-tax Act. The objects of the Trust and the directions for its administration are embodied in Clause 2 of the Trust Deed which reads thus:-- "The Trustees shall henceforth hold the said property and all capital moneys and investments arising or resulting from any sale or conversion of the same (all which original property and resulting or substituted moneys and investments are hereafter included in the term 'the Trust Fund' that term being intended to mean from time to time the constituents for the time being of that fund) and the income therefrom respectively UPON TRUST to pay and apply the said income from time to time and at such times in such manner and in accordance with such scheme or arrangement as the Trustees may in their absolute discretion from time to time determine in and towards the attainment assistance or support of such charitable purpose or purposes as the Trustees may in their unfettered judgment deem to be the most deserving of support".
(3.) The Income-tax Officer rejected the assessee's claim on the ground that the Trust was inoperative for vagueness. He referred to the words by which the objects of the Trust had been described, namely, "such charitable purpose or purposes as the Trustees may in their unfettered judgment deem to be the most deserving of support" and observed that in view of the manner in which the objects had been referred to, "the Trustees could not be compelled In law to spend anything for charitable purposes" during the time the Trust Deed was in force. On appeal by the assessee, the rejection of its claim to refund was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who virtually repeated in his order the words of the Income-tax Officer. He also held that the objects of the Trust, as set out in the deed, were "very vague" and that it was not clear for what specific purpose the Trust had been created. On a further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal held that the Trust could not be said to be bad for the reason that no specific charitable object had been mentioned. It was pointed out that the Trust was not for such purpose or purposes as the trustees might deem charitable, but lor such charitable purpose or purposes as they might choose. A Trust expressed in such language, it was held, could not fail for want of definiteness and the Court would be able to undertake the control of the Trust and to administer it effectively, if it was found necessary to do so. In accordance with that view, the Tribunal directed the Income-tax Officer to deal with the refund applications in accordance with law. They followed the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of 'Chaturbhuj Vallabhdas v. Commissioner of Income-tax', AIR 1946 Bom 337 (A) and did not follow the decision of the East Punjab High Court in the case of 'Shadiram v. Ramkis-son', AIR 1948 EP 49 (B).;