Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"8. Summary of Arguments 1 Whereas in the case of the trust, settlor, contributor and beneficiaries, all have to be independent and distinct In the case of the .assessee the contributors are the beneficiaries themselves, therefore, the assessee cannot be treated as a trust, but as an AOP having 19 members in the form of QIB5 and financial institution.

2 After its creation, the so-called trust entered into contribution assignment/offer document on 28.06.2011 for the sole purpose of taking NPAs for sale at a profit. Such an entity can be at best be classified as an AOP created jointly by several persons for earning profits.

In the backdrop of his aforesaid deliberations the A.O assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,73,71,772/- under the head „Income from business and profession‟.

3. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the assessment order in appeal before the CIT(A). After deliberating on the contentions advanced by the assessee the CIT(A) was of the view that issues therein involved in the appeal before him had already been decided by his predecessor in the case of ISARC SIDBI-2, a sister concern, for A.Y 2012-13 vide his order passed in Appeal No. CIT(A)-32/IT- 211/23(1)(2)/15-16, dated 08.02.2017. Relying on the aforesaid order, the CIT(A) concluded that the A.O in the case of the assessee before him had rightly taken the status of the assessee as that of an AOP. Further, it was observed by the CIT(A), that in the aforesaid case before his predecessor though the assessee was formed as a trust, in substance, it was held as not a trust since the settlor and the beneficiaries remained the same. Observing, that as the fact situation in the case before him in the present appeal remained the same, the CIT(A) followed the view that was earlier taken by his predecessor in his order passed in Appeal No. CIT(A)-32/IT-211/23(1)(2)/15-16, dated 08.02.2017. As for the alternative view taken by the A.O, that even if the assessee was to be held to be a trust, it being an irrevocable trust the provisions of Sec. 61 to Sec. 63 would not be applicable in its case, the CIT(A) relied on the order passed by his predecessor in Appeal No. CIT(A)-32/IT-211/23(1)(2)/15-16, dated 08.02.2017 found no infirmity in the said observation of the A.O and upheld the same. As regards the view taken by the A.O that the assessee being an indeterminate trust its surplus was to be assessed at the maximum marginal rate as per the provisions of Sec. 167B by treating it as an AOP, the CIT(A) relied on the view taken by his predecessor under identical facts in his order passed Appeal No. CIT(A)-32/IT-211/23(1)(2)/15- 16, dated 08.02.2017, and approved the same. To sum up, the CIT(A) following the view that was taken by his predecessor while disposing off the appeal in the case of ISARC SIDBI-2, a sister concern, for A.Y 2012-13, vide his order passed in Appeal No. CIT(A)-32/IT-211/23(1)(2)/15-16, dated 08.02.2017, wherein identical facts were involved, therein concluded that the A.O had rightly assessed the income of the assessee in the status as that of an AOP, i.e at the maximum marginal rate.

5. The revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal it was submitted by the ld. Authorized representative (for short "A.R") for the assessee, that the issues involved in the present appeal were squarely covered by the consolidated order passed by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. ISARC 14/2010-11 Trust & others, vide order dated 04.09.2019 (copies placed on record). As a perusal of the consolidated order passed by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. ISARC 14/2010-11 Trust & Others revealed, that both the assessee and revenue had assailed the order of the CIT(A) before the Tribunal, therefore, a query was raised by the bench to the ld. counsel for the assessee that as to whether any cross-appeal was filed by the assessee against the impugned order. However, no reply was filed by the Ld. A.R. Accordingly, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we proceed with the adjudication of the present appeal of the revenue before us. Admittedly, the observations of the A.O, viz. (i) that the status of the assessee was an AOP; (ii) that even if the assessee was held to be a trust it being an irrevocable trust would thus not be governed by the provisions of Sec. 61 to Sec. 63 of the Act; (iii) that though the assessee had formed a trust, but in substance it could not be treated as a trust since the settlor and the beneficiaries were the same; and (iv) that as the shares of the members were non-determinate the surplus was therefore to be taxed in the hands of the assessee as an AOP at maximum marginal rate, as per the provisions of Sec.167B of the Act, were upheld by the CIT(A) by relying on the view taken by his predecessor while disposing off the appeal in the case of the ISARC SIDBI-2, a sister concern for A.Y.2012-13, vide his order passed while disposing off its appeal, viz. Appeal No. CIT(A)-32/IT-211/23(1)(2)/15-16, dated 08.02.2017. Accordingly, the contentions which were advanced by the assessee assailing the aforesaid observations of the A.O were dismissed by the CIT(A). As the assessee had not assailed the aforesaid observations of the CIT(A) any further in appeal before us, the same thus had attained finality.