9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Reopening of assessment of the assessee-trust, applicability of sections 13(2)(h) and 13(3) of the Income-tax Act, entitlement to exemption under section 11, investment of funds in a concern by a partner in the firm, furnishing primary materials, validity of reopening of assessment. Analysis: The judgment pertains to the reopening of assessment of an assessee-trust for the assessment year 1973-74. The trust's object is to provide education and is a partner in two firms. The Income-tax Officer reopened the assessment based on funds of the trust being invested in concerns where trustees had substantial interests, violating section 13(1)(c) and rendering the trust ineligible for exemption under section 11. The initiation of proceedings under section 148 required the assessee to file a revised return, which was challenged. The Officer held that sections 13(1)(c)(ii), 13(2)(h), and 13(3) applied, disqualifying the trust from exemption under section 11 due to funds invested in the firms with close relatives of trustees. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the Officer's conclusions, stating that the trust's funds remained invested in the concerns, justifying the reopening. The judgment references previous decisions involving the same trust for other assessment years, where benefits under section 11 were denied due to similar violations. The judgment delves into the statutory provisions of section 11 and section 13, emphasizing that income must be applied to charitable purposes for exemption under section 11. Section 13 introduces exceptions, including section 13(2)(h), deeming income to be used for a person with substantial interest in a concern. The court emphasized that for a trust to claim benefit under section 11, the income must be used for charitable purposes and not retained in a partnership with connections specified in section 13. The judgment concludes by answering the questions raised in the references: Question No. 1 in I. T. R. No. 31 of 1990 was not answered, Question No. 2 and 3 were answered in favor of the Revenue. In I. T. R. No. 145 of 1994, both questions were answered in favor of the Revenue. The judgment directs the forwarding of a copy to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench as required by law.
|
