9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the proviso to Section 164(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Determination of whether the trust was created bona fide for the benefit of the relatives of the settlors. 3. Tax assessment rate applicable to the trust. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of the Proviso to Section 164(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The primary issue was whether the proviso to Section 164(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, introduced by the Finance Act of 1970, effective from April 1, 1971, was applicable in assessing the trust in question. The proviso outlined conditions under which income received by a trust would be taxed at the rate applicable to an association of persons or at 65%, whichever was more beneficial to the Revenue. The trust was created on December 9, 1964, by the four sons of Keshrichand Khaitan (deceased) for the benefit of their heirs and successors. 2. Determination of Whether the Trust was Created Bona Fide for the Benefit of the Relatives of the Settlors: The Tribunal had to determine whether the trust was created bona fide exclusively for the benefit of the relatives of the settlors. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) noted that the income of the trust had not been spent on the declared objects since its inception, leading to the conclusion that the trust was not created bona fide. The Tribunal agreed with the ITO, emphasizing that the trust's income had not been applied for its purposes and objects, thus failing to meet the conditions of clause (iii) of the proviso to Section 164(1). 3. Tax Assessment Rate Applicable to the Trust: Given that the shares of the beneficiaries were indeterminate and unknown, and the trust was not deemed to have been created bona fide, the ITO assessed the trust's total income at the maximum rate of 65%. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) initially reversed this decision, directing that the trust be taxed at the normal rate applicable to an association of persons. However, the Tribunal reinstated the ITO's assessment, holding that the trust was liable to tax at the rate of 65%. Judgment Analysis: The Tribunal's decision was based on the non-application of the trust's income for its declared objects, leading to the conclusion that the trust was not created bona fide. However, the High Court found that the Tribunal applied an incorrect test. The correct test required considering whether the trust was created bona fide at the time of its creation, not based solely on subsequent conduct. The High Court noted that the trust deed gave complete discretion to the trustees in applying the income for the benefit of the relatives, which included education, medical assistance, and maintenance. The non-application of the income for the trust's objects in a particular year did not necessarily indicate that the trust was not created bona fide. The High Court emphasized that the creation of the trust must be bona fide, considering all relevant circumstances at the time of its creation. The mere non-application of the fund for the declared objects did not conclusively prove that the trust was not created bona fide. The Tribunal's conclusion that the trust was not created bona fide was based on an incorrect legal test, making it a question of law. Reframed Question and Conclusion: The High Court reframed the question to: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the trust was not created bona fide for the benefit of the relatives of the settlors and as such one of the conditions laid down under clause (iii) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 164 was not fulfilled and the assessee-trust was liable to be assessed at the prescribed rate of 65 per cent. and not at the rate applicable to the total income of an association of persons?" The High Court answered the reframed question in the negative, in favor of the assessee, concluding that the Tribunal applied an incorrect test in determining the bona fides of the trust's creation. Consequently, the trust should not be assessed at the maximum rate of 65%. Costs: In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties were directed to pay and bear their own costs.
|
