Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The assessee took the matter in appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the rectification was valid in law and the trust income was exempt by virtue of s. 11. Aggrieved by the said order, the Department appealed to the Tribunal. Pending the appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee filed a suit under s. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the District Judge, Coimbatore, for rectification of the original trust deed dated June 25, 1968, and the District Judge decreed the said suit on April 15, 1981, declaring the offending clauses to be void with effect from June 25, 1968, the date of the original deed of trust.

14. This leads us to the third contention which is based on the rectification order by a decree of the District Court, Coimbatore, on April 15, 1981, with effect from June 25, 1968. This question appears to be outside the scope of this reference. However, having regard to the submission made on that question by both sides, we proceed to express our prima facie opinion. Subsequent to the Revenue filling an appeal before the Tribunal, O.S. No. 18 of 1981 on the file of the District Court, Coimbatore, was filed under ss. 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking a declaration that the inclusion of the words "and outside" in clauses 'd' and 'e', and the continuance of clauses 'k', 'l' and 'o' in paragraph III of the trust deed dated June 25, 1968, are void into and non est and, consequently, directing the deletion of the words "and outside" in clauses 'd' and 'e' and the detection of the clauses 'k', 'l' and 'o' in paragraph III of the trust deed. In the said suit, one S. Venugopalan for himself and as representative of the general body of employees of M/s. Sakthi Sugars Ltd., Coimbatore, was shown as the defendant. The suit was shown as the defendant. The suit was not resisted. On the other hand, the defendant had no objection for the suit being decreed as prayed for. In the plaint, the reason for seeking deletion of the words "and outside" in cls. 'd' and 'e' and clauses 'k', 'I' and 'O' is that they are not in conformity with the I.T. Act to merit exemption out in the plain that though a rectification deed was made by the trustees under the impression that they had the right to do so, the trustees had no power to rectify and therefore, they had no other alternative except to come before the court. The court, after referring to the fact of the relevant clauses being inconsistent with the I.T.Act to merit exemption and the trustees having no power to deal with the same, proceeded to delete the clauses on the ground that no prejudice would be caused to any section of the public and no individual or body of individuals is affected by such deletion. This decision in the suit was rendered on April 29, 1981, before the Tribunal rendered the decision on October 16, 1981. According to the learned counsel for the assessee, the Tribunal before whom the judgment of the District Court was placed, had not considered the relevancy of the same. But, however it is seen that the Tribunal has referred to the judgment of the District Court, Coimbatore, in O.S. No. 18 of 1981. But it says that the order is dated April 29, 1981. But it says that the order is taken place after the original assessment, and that this new piece of evidence was not considered by the department authorities, nor will the said decision support the assessee's contention that though the judgment of the District Court has deleted the offending clauses in the trust deed, it cannot be done with retrospective effect and that no authority has been cited for the proposition that the judgment of the court can be given retrospective effect. On a due consideration of the matter, we are inclined to agree with the Tribunal that even assumming that the District Court is empowered to delete the offending clauses from the deed of trust under s. 92 of the CPC, it cannot do so with retrospective effect from June 25, 1968, the date when the original trust deed came into force. The deleting of the offending clauses can take effect only from the date of the decree and not before.