9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Application of Section 64(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Application of Section 164 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Determination of beneficiaries and their shares under the trust deed. Detailed Analysis: 1. Application of Section 64(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The Income Tax Officer (ITO) invoked Section 64(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, assessing the income of the trust in the hands of the settlor, arguing that the real beneficiaries were the minor sons of the settlor. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) disagreed, stating that the minors were not in receipt of any tangible benefits during the years under consideration and did not have any vested interest in the income or corpus of the trust. The AAC relied on the Supreme Court ruling in CIT v. Manilal Dhanji [1962] 44 ITR 876 (SC) and concluded that the trust could not be deemed a sham transaction based on probable future actions of the trustees. Since the department did not contest this decision, it became final. 2. Application of Section 164 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The ITO applied Section 164, taxing the income of the trust at 65%, arguing that the shares of the beneficiaries were indeterminate. The AAC upheld this application, despite the assessee's argument that the beneficiaries and their shares were clearly indicated in the trust deed. The AAC reasoned that the facts of the case were similar to those in the Tribunal's decision in ITO v. C.L. Sadani Family Trust [1982] 1 ITD 223 (Cal.), but disagreed with the Special Bench's view, concluding that the Tribunal's decision went beyond the Supreme Court's interpretation in CWT v. Trustees of H.E.H. Nizam's Family (Remainder Wealth) Trust [1977] 108 ITR 555. 3. Determination of Beneficiaries and Their Shares Under the Trust Deed: The trust deed specified the beneficiaries and their shares in various sub-clauses of clause 3. The assessee argued that the trust deed provided clear contingencies for each possible event, ensuring that the beneficiaries and their shares were determinate. The AAC, however, upheld the ITO's view that the shares were indeterminate. The Tribunal, upon appeal, found that the facts of the present case were identical to those in the C.L. Sadani Family Trust case, where the Supreme Court's test for determining the certainty of beneficiaries was applied. The Tribunal emphasized that according to the Supreme Court's ruling in Trustees of H.E.H. Nizam's Family (Remainder Wealth) Trust, the determinateness of the beneficiaries should be assessed as if the trust had come to an end on the relevant date. Applying this principle, the Tribunal found that the beneficiaries and their shares were determinate and known, thus Section 164 did not apply. The Tribunal noted that Jagdamba Bai was entitled to 10% of the income each year, and the balance 90% would go to Rajeev and Udayan, the settlor's sons, in equal shares. The Tribunal concluded that the shares were determinate and known, following the precedent set by the Special Bench in C.L. Sadani Family Trust's case and the Supreme Court's ruling in Trustees of H.E.H. Nizam's Family (Remainder Wealth) Trust. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee, holding that the provisions of Section 164 did not apply to the trust under consideration. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that the determinateness of beneficiaries should be assessed on the assumption that the trust had come to an end on the relevant date, and found that the beneficiaries and their shares were indeed determinate and known.
|
