Judgment :- THANIKKACHALAM J. In pursuance of the order passed by this court in T. C. P. Nos. 53, 54 and 55 of 1979, the Tribunal referred the following questions for our opinion under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1971-72 to 1974-75 "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the income from property No. 1, Memorial Hall Road, and Nos. 511 and 512, Mint Street, Madras, should not be assessed in the hands of the assessee ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's finding that the assessee was not the owner of the properties is based on valid and relevant materials and is a reasonable view to take on the facts of the case ?" The assessee is a trust constituted under a deed dated August 14, 1951, under which five trustees were appointed to manage and administer certain properties. The properties were to be held for the benefit of the Chemists and Druggists Association and any surplus income available was directed to be utilised for the purpose of the association. The assessee filed returns before the Income-tax Officer claiming exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer held that the trust was not intended for the benefit of any cross section of the public and hence the benefit of section 11 was not available. The assessee had income from properties and also interest. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment on the trust for the assessment years in appeal. The assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that this was not an independent body having control over the management and affairs relating to a building. The income really belonged to the Chemists and Druggists Association in whose hands it should be assessed. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, therefore, did not accept the assessments in the hands of the assessee-trust, but directed the Income-tax Officer to assess the income from the house property in the hands of the Chemists and Druggists Association. Aggrieved, the Department filed appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, therefore, did not accept the assessments in the hands of the assessee-trust, but directed the Income-tax Officer to assess the income from the house property in the hands of the Chemists and Druggists Association. Aggrieved, the Department filed appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and accordingly, confirmed the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in all the assessments under his considerationLearned standing counsel for the Department submitted that the trust was created by a trust deed dated August 14, 1951, and according to the said trust deed five persons created the trust by dedicating two properties, one in Memorial Hall Road and another in Mint Street in favour of the trust. According to the trust deed, the legal title in the properties was vested in the trust and the Chemists and Druggists Association were the beneficiaries of the trust. The income arising out of the trust was applied for the benefit of the association. Therefore, according to learned standing counsel, when the legal title over the properties was vested in the hands of the trust, it is not possible to make an assessment with regard to the income from the property in the hands of the beneficiaries which is the Chemists and Druggists Association. Hence, learned standing counsel submitted that the Appellate Tribunal was not correct in directing the Assessing Officer to assess the income from the trust properties in the hands of the Chemists and Druggists Association. Learned standing counsel further pointed out that the properties in question were purchased under a sale deed dated June 5, 1950. The properties in question were purchased by the board of trustees of the Madras Chemists and Druggists Association represented by the governing body consisting of five persons. After the said properties were purchased by the said board of trustees, the abovesaid trust was created. In the trust, the Madras Chemists and Druggists Association is the beneficiary according to the trust deed. There is also a clause which shows that the excess income can be applied to the benefit of the trustees and also for other purpose. After the said properties were purchased by the said board of trustees, the abovesaid trust was created. In the trust, the Madras Chemists and Druggists Association is the beneficiary according to the trust deed. There is also a clause which shows that the excess income can be applied to the benefit of the trustees and also for other purpose. Therefore, learned standing counsel submitted that the direction given by the Tribunal to assess the income from the properties in the hands of the Chemists and Druggists Association is not correctOn the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, while supporting the order passed by the Tribunal, submitted that the Madras Chemists and Druggists Association are the sole beneficiaries of the trust and the board of trustees are only entrusted with the management of the properties. Therefore, according to learned counsel, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the income arising from these properties should be assessed in the hands of the Chemists and Druggists Association. Alternatively, learned counsel also submitted that, in case the assessment is made on the trust, then a direction can be given to the Assessing Officer to assess the income from the trust as assessable in the hands of the beneficiaries It remains to be seen that the two properties in question were purchased by a deed of sale dated June 5, 1950, by the board of trustees of the Madras Chemists and Druggists Association represented by the governing body consisting of (1) Lalchand Dhadha, (2) Venkatapathi Naidu, (3) Mohanlal Pandia, (4) Wilfred Periera, and (5) R. S. K. Swamy. This board of trustees, after purchasing these properties, dedicated these properties to the benefit of the Madras Chemists and Druggists Association under a trust deed dated August 14, 1951. Clause 1 of the trust deed states as under "The legal title in the property bearing at present Municipal Door No. 1, Memorial Hall Street, and Door Nos. This board of trustees, after purchasing these properties, dedicated these properties to the benefit of the Madras Chemists and Druggists Association under a trust deed dated August 14, 1951. Clause 1 of the trust deed states as under "The legal title in the property bearing at present Municipal Door No. 1, Memorial Hall Street, and Door Nos. 511 and 512, Mint Street, Park Town, Madras-600 003, more particularly, described in Schedule 'A' hereto and purchased under registered deed of conveyance dated June 8, 1950, in these names of the aforesaid five persons, constituting board of trustees, shall vest and continue to be vested in the said five persons as a board of trustees and in the successors in office of each of them as and when such successors are duly co-opted in the manner provided for herein."Clause 2 of the said trust deed states that "..... to avoid all ambiguity, the said association shall not have a separate board of trustees in whom the other movable and immovable properties may remain vested and they shall, for vesting such properties, constitute the governing body, viz., the executive committee as the body in whom the said movable and other immovable properties the legal titles of which vest in the association shall be deemed to be vested for all purposes referred to in section 5 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. " Clause 10 of the said trust deed says that " It shall be competent for the board of trustees to apply any part of the net surplus income from the said trust properties for their own individual purpose or for the purposes of any association or body other than the Chemists and Druggists Association, Madras, who shall be the sole beneficiaries, beneficial owner of the net surplus income from the property, as provided for therein for the purpose of the said association." Therefore, a plain reading of the abovesaid trust deed would go to show that the legal title in the abovesaid two properties vests in the trust and not in the association. Therefore, the income arising from these two properties should be assessed in the hands of the trust and not in the hands of the association. In the present case, the Chemists and Druggists Association Building Trust, Madras, is the assessee. Therefore, the income arising from these two properties should be assessed in the hands of the trust and not in the hands of the association. In the present case, the Chemists and Druggists Association Building Trust, Madras, is the assessee. The assessee filed the returns for the assessment year under consideration and on the basis of these returns, the Income-tax Officer assessed the property income in the hands of the assessee which is the trust. In such circumstances, there is no basis for the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the association is the legal owner of the trust properties. Therefore, the direction given by the Tribunal to the Assessing Officer to assess the income from these properties in the hands of the Chemists and Druggists Association is not in accordance with the facts arising in this case. Therefore, we are not in agreement with that finding of the Tribunal and accordingly restore this matter to the Tribunal with a direction to assess the income from the said two properties in the hands of the assessee who is the Chemists and Druggists Association Building Trust, Madras. While making the assessment, the Tribunal is directed to assess the income from the properties in the hands of the trust as to be assessed in the hands of the beneficiaries. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Department. There is no order as to costs. Counsel's fee is fixed at Rs. 1,000.