2013 (3) TMI 97 - HC - Income Tax

Charitable trust - Exemption u/s 11 - benefit to the persons referred to in section 13(3) - revenue submitted that the registered lease deed was only for a period of 29 years. After the term would have expired in the year 2034, the lessee i.e. the present assessee would not be in a position to remove the construction which would enure to the benefit of the trustees who are lessors. Therefore, the provision of section 13 has rightly been invoked. - held that - The submission is wholly misconceived. - In the registered lease deed, there is no stipulation that the construction made on the lease land would become the property of the lessor after the expiry of the term of the period of lease. After the expiry of the leased period, it is always open to the assessee to remove the constructions and, therefore, no benefit would directly enure to the benefit of the trustees. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Issues:
1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the trust did not apply its income or property for the benefit of individuals under section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in not recognizing an amended deed as collusive and in not appreciating the lack of power given to the trust for property transfer?
3. Whether the Tribunal erred in not acknowledging the irrevocability of the trust and the adverse title set up by the trustees?
4. Whether the Tribunal's decision regarding the registered lease deed and setting up adverse title was lawful under the Income Tax Act?

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order regarding the trust's application of income or property for the benefit of individuals under section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal held that since no part of the trust's income or property was used for such benefit during the year under consideration, the benefit of section 11 could not be denied to the trust. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, treating the construction expenditure as an application of trust income, and ruled that section 13(1) did not apply. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that no legal infirmity was found in the order.

2. The Tribunal's decision on the amended deed and its recognition as collusive was challenged in the appeal. The counsel argued that the trust had no power for property transfer, making the deed invalid. However, the High Court dismissed this argument, emphasizing that the registered lease deed did not stipulate that the constructions would become the lessor's property after the lease period. Therefore, no direct benefit would accrue to the trustees after the lease's expiry.

3. The issue of trust irrevocability and adverse title set up by the trustees was raised in the appeal. The counsel contended that the trust created was not irrevocable and that entering into a registered lease deed with the trustees amounted to setting up adverse title. However, the High Court found no merit in this argument, stating that the trust could remove the constructions after the lease period, preventing any direct benefit to the trustees.

4. The Tribunal's decision on the registered lease deed and setting up adverse title was also challenged. The counsel argued that the action of taxing the income and denying deduction under section 11 was lawful due to the adverse title set up by the trustees. However, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, concluding that no legal infirmity existed in the order.

← Previous Next →