9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (12) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trust. The Trust was constituted for the purpose of giving relief to the poor, medical relief, education and any other object of public utility, not involving the carrying on an activity for profit. By a deed of rectification dated 22nd Oct.,1973 executed by the aforesaid Kandasamy Mudaliar, the fourth object was amended to read as "any other object of general public utility, not involving the carrying on activity for profit". The assessee trust had invested Rs. 1,82,589 in the firm M/s. P.S.K. Finance Chit Fund Corpn. Which consisted of the partners, T.K. Kuppusamy, who is a divided son of the aforesaid Kandasamy Mudaliar and Smt Malarkody Rani who is the daughter in law of the aforesaid gentleman, each having 35 per cent. One minor Sas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ettled on trust came out of the funds of the aforesaid HUF. It is claimed that, therefore, it could not be said that any part of the property of the trust had been, during the previous year, used or applied directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person referred in sub-s. (3) of s. 13. The ITO rejected the contention. He held that P.S. Kandasamy Mudaliar was the author of the trust in his individual capacity and that since investments had been made in the firms in which his sons and daughters in law were partners and since advances had been made to his daughters in law and grand sons, the provisions of s. 13(C)(ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 became attracted and hence, there was no scope for the application of s. 11 and s. 12. Regarding th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ries in the books maintained by the said HUF. He also pointed out that P.S. Kandasamy Mudaliar had separate funds of his own distinct from those of the HUF, of which he was the karta and the fact that notwithstanding the existence of the separate funds he had chosen to declare a trust in respect of Rs. 2,500 of the fund belonging to the HUR indicated that the said HUF alone was the author. 7. We are unable to accept the above contention. We have gone through the trust deed, and, in our opinion, when read as a whole it clearly indicates that the author of the trust was only P.S. Kandasamy Mudaliar in his individual capacity. There is nothing in his individual capacity. T here is nothing in it to indicate that the author of the trust was th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Similarly his grant sons are partners in the firm of M/s. P.S. K. Financiers. Other advances made during the accounting year ending 31st March,1975 were to his other daughters in law and other grand sons. This is not to speak of the fact that his separated son R.K. Kuppusamy was also a partner in both the firms referred to above. Thus, there can be no doubt at all that the provisions of sub-clause (ii) of clause (c) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 13 are attracted. 9. The departmental representative contended that even assuming that the H.U.F. of which Kandasamy Mudaliar was the karta, the author of the trust, the result would be the same because, in clause (4) of sub-sec. (3) any relative of a member of the author HUF is included. Undoubtedly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
