Suhas Chandba Sen, J.
1. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to this court :
'Whether, in view of the fact that the asses see-association is a registered trade union and in view of the provisions in Rule 3 of the Rules and Regulations of the Association that the object of the association is to regulate relations between members and members and between members and their employees, the Tribunal was right in upholding the denial of the exemption claimed under Section 10(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'
2. In this proceeding, the assessment years involved are 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80 and 1974-75 for which the relevant periods of account are calender years 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1973 respectively. The assessee is an association registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The question of law raised in this reference also came up for consideration before the Tribunal in I. T. A. Nos. 5809 and 5810/(Cal) of 1965-66 for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. The assessee did not come tothis court by way of reference against that decision of the Tribunal. The assessee, however, in the instant case, decided to challenge the order of the Tribunal on the aforesaid question of law.
3. The objects set out in Clause (3) of the Rules and Regulations of the Indian Jute Mills Association are, inter alia, as follows :
'(3) The object of the association is to regulate relations between members and members and between members and their employees and additionally the objects of the association shall include the following ;
(i) To protect, forward and defend the trade of the members of the association ;
(ii) to regulate the conduct of the trade ;
(iii) To arbitrate on matters of dispute ;
(iv) To collect, classify, interpret and circulate statistics ;
(v) to encourage and finance measures for improving cultivation of jute and allied fibres in India ;
(vi) To encourage and finance technical development in plant and machinery necessary for the manufacture of jute products ;
(vii) To encourage and finance the scientific exploration of new uses to which jute can be applied and the discovery of by-products and to promote the commercial exploitation of the results of such research ;
(viii) To foster existing markets and open out new markets in India and abroad through publicity and public relations work, the establishing and maintaining of branch offices of the association overseas, the organising of trade delegations and study teams, the undertaking of market surveys and other suitable promotional media ;
(viii-a) To seek and/or obtain from any Government or any public authority or any company, body corporate, firm or person, bounties, subsidies, grants or donations for the purpose of the association on such condition and in such manner as the association shall think fit ;
(ix) To encourage the use of standard forms of contract in the trade and to assist in securing general recognition of and adherence to established trade customs and practices ;
(x) To work for the proper definition of standards of quality of jute and jute products and to encourage the maintenance of these standards ;
(xi) To provide training facilities in jute technology for the benefit of the members ;
(xii) To promote sound relations between the members and their employees through the observance of common labour policies based on the requirement of the law and general considerations of labour welfare ;
(xiii) The establishment of a fund or of funds ;
(xiv) The giving of legal assistance in connection with all or any of the above objects within the limits allowed by law ;
(xv) The assistance of, or amalgamation within India or overseas, other associations or societies or federations of associations or societies having for their objects or one of their objects the promotion of the interests of the jute trade ;
(xvi) To do all such other lawful things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of the above objects or any of them.'
4. The contention of Mr. S. K. Bhattacharjee is that it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Indian Sugar Mills Association : [1974]97ITR486(SC) that each one of the objects of that association fell in the category of primary purposes of that association. It was not possible to treat any one of them as ancillary or incidental to another.
5. It was argued by Mr. Bhattacharjee that the Indian Sugar Mills Association was also a registered body under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Therefore, each of the objects of the Indian Jute Mills Association must be treated as a primary object. If that be so, then Section 10(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, comes into operation and it reads as follows :
'Any income chargeable under the heads 'Interest on securities', 'Income from house property' and 'Income from other sources' of a registered union within the meaning of the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 (XVI of 1926), formed primarily for the purpose of regulating the relations between workmen and employers or between workmen and workmen ;'
6. I am unable to uphold this contention of Mr. Bhattacharjee. In order to succeed in this reference, the assessee will have to establish that the association was formed primarily for the purpose of regulating the relations between workmen and employers and/or between workmen and workmen. If each one of the objects of the association is to be treated as a primary object, then it cannot be said that the association was 'formed primarily' for any particular object. Sub-clause (xii) of Clause (3) of the Rules and Regulations of the Association is the only clause dealing with relationship between workmen and employers. There are fifteen other objects set out in Clause (3), which are for the protection of trade of the members of the association, regulating conduct of the trade, arbitrating on matters of dispute, collection, classification, interpretation and circulation of statistics, etc. Not one of these objects has anything to do with regulating relations between workmen and employers and/or between workmen and workmen. Merely because one of the sixteen objects of the association was for regulating relations between workmen and employers and/or between workmen and workmen, it cannot be said that the association was primarily formed forthat purpose. That apart, there was no finding of fact nor was it argued before the Tribunal that the society was mainly engaged in regulating the relationship between the employers and workmen or workmen and workmen. The assessment order indicates that the society had a very large income. But there is no indication that there was any expenditure on account of regulating the relationship between the employers and workmen or workmen and workmen.
7. Our attention was drawn to a judgment of this court in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Hydraulic Press Association : [1980]121ITR414(Cal) , where it was held that the Calcutta Hydraulic Press Association fulfilled the conditions of Section 10(24) of the Act which entitled them to get the benefit of the provisions of Section 10(24). But that case was decided on the basis of the facts found by the Tribunal in that case.
8. Calcutta Hydraulic Press Association's case : [1980]121ITR414(Cal) was noted and distinguished in the case of Indian Sugar Mills Association v. CIT : [1984]150ITR593(Cal) , where it was held that the Indian Sugar Mills Association, though registered under the Trade Unions Act having some objects dealing with and regulating the terms and conditions regulating the employment and also good relations between employers and employees was not an association formed primarily for the purpose of regulating the relations between workmen and employers or between workmen and workmen, as was evident from its rules and regulations. The association of employers was only set up entirely for the protection of the interests of its members. Therefore, the association was not entitled to exemption under Section 10(24) of the Act.
9. Having regard to the various objects of the Indian Jute Mills Association, we are of the view that the decision taken by the Tribunal in the instant case is fully justified.
10. The question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue.
11. There will be no order as to costs.
Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J.
12. I agree.