9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of 1/6th share in Lady Kanchanbai Trust and Sir Hukumchand Trust in the net wealth of the assessee. 2. Competence of the assessee to throw his beneficial interest into the common hotch-potch of his HUF by virtue of the declaration dated 19-10-1964. 3. Examination of the trust deed afresh by the revenue authorities. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Inclusion of 1/6th Share in Trusts in Net Wealth of Assessee The assessee contested the inclusion of his 1/6th share in Lady Kanchanbai Trust and Sir Hukumchand Trust in his individual net wealth for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1989-90. The Assessing Officer included these shares based on previous decisions, notably the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT v. Maharaja Bahadur Singh [1986] 162 ITR 343/28 Taxman 560A and a Tribunal decision in the case of Jambukumar Singh Kasliwal for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-84. The CWT (Appeals) upheld this inclusion, noting that the declaration dated 19-10-1964 was with retrospective effect from 31-10-1959 and therefore applicable to assessments for the years 1962-63 and 1963-64, as decided by the Supreme Court. Issue 2: Competence of the Assessee to Throw Beneficial Interest into HUF The assessee argued that he had the right to throw his beneficial interest in the trusts into the common hotch-potch of his HUF by making an unequivocal declaration on 19-10-1964. This argument was based on Section 58 of the Indian Trust Act, which allows a beneficiary to transfer his interest subject to the law in force. The assessee contended that the Supreme Court's decision did not consider this aspect of the declaration. However, the CWT (Appeals) and the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the Supreme Court had already addressed the issue of the nature of the beneficial interest, concluding that it was held by the assessee in his individual capacity. Issue 3: Examination of Trust Deed Afresh The Tribunal considered whether the revenue authorities could examine the trust deed afresh to determine the extent of the beneficial interest and the competence of the assessee to make the declaration. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had interpreted the trust deeds to conclude that the properties were intended to devolve on the beneficiaries in their individual capacity. However, the Tribunal also recognized that the Supreme Court did not examine the genuineness and veracity of the declaration dated 19-10-1964. The Tribunal agreed with the CWT (Appeals) that the trust deeds needed to be examined to determine the extent of the beneficial interest and whether the assessee had the absolute right to dispose of it. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CWT (Appeals) decision, concluding that the assessee did not have an absolute right in the beneficial interest and was not competent to throw his beneficial interest into the common hotch-potch of the HUF by making an unequivocal declaration until the due date of distribution of the corpus. The appeals of the assessee were dismissed.
|
