Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(The other portion of the preamble is not necessary for our present purpose).
(10) From the above statement, it is clear that the assessee out of natural love and affection for his minor children has created the trust in question. The deed also makes it clear that the three minor children of the Settlor mentioned in the deed are the beneficiaries under that trust. Now we shall proceed to examine the terms of the deed.

Clause (1) of the trust deed says:

"1. The Settlor doth hereby grant, transfer and convey unto the Trustees the shares set out and described in Schedule A hereto, to have and to hold the same in Trust, both as to the corpus and income therefrom, for a period of two years from the date of this indenture for the benefit of Shri Yeshwantrao Maharaj Charitable Trust and on the expiry o the said period of two years, to have and to hold the shares set out and described in Schedule A hereto in Trust, both as to the Corpus and income received after the expiry of the aforesaid period of two years from the date of this indenture, for the benefit of Rajkumar Shri Shivarao Yeshwantrao Ghorpade, the First Beneficiary herein, as the full, absolute and beneficial owner thereof, but subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth."

(The proviso to this clause are not necessary for our purpose).

From the provision it is seen that it was left to the absolute discretion of the trustees whether to accumulate the income of the trust property for the benefit of the family charitable trust or not. Clauses 22 to 24 say that the trustees in their absolute discretion may accumulate the income accruing under the settlement and trust for the benefit of the beneficiaries till 31st July 1975, and then make over the same to the beneficiary concerned. As mentioned earlier the beneficiaries mentioned in the deed are the minor children of the Settlor. The operations of these clauses appear to extend even to the period when those beneficiaries are minors. If so, they conflict with clauses 1 to 3 of the trust deed. Clause 25 provides as to what should be done in the even of the death of any of the beneficiaries before 31st July 1975. These provisions are not relevant for our present purpose. Then we come to the important clause, clause 26 which reads:

"26. Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses 21 to 25m supra the Trustees shall have full power during the currency of this Settlement and Trust to expend from out of the income accruing under this settlement to each of the beneficiaries herein such amount as the Trustees may in their discretion deem fit for the maintenance education, health, marriage and advancement of each of the beneficiaries herein."

According to the learned counsel for the Revenue the only beneficiaries under the Second Trust are the three minor children of the Settlor. The trust property vests with trustees for their benefit from the date the trust came into existence. The income of the trust property is intended to be expended for their maintenance, education, health, marriage and advancement. That according to him is in provision even during the minority of the beneficiaries and the family charitable trust would get only the unexpended income and that accumulated during the minority of the beneficiaries. But according to Sri. R. Venkataraman, the learned counsel for the assessee, the trust position under the deed is that during the minority of the beneficiaries mentioned in the trust deed, the trust properties vest with the trustees for the benefit of the family charitable Trust. But they are given power to utilise a portion of the income of the trust properties for the benefit of the beneficiaries named in the deed. Naturally he relies very strongly on clauses 1 to 3 of the deed. But these clauses cannot be isolated from the other provisions in the deed. All the provisions have to be read together. The deed clearly speaks in two voices. Clauses 1 to 3 of the deed arbitration not consistent with clauses cannot be isolated from the other provisions in the deed. All the provisions have to be read together. The deed clearly speaks in two voices. Clauses 1 to 3 of the deed are not consistent with clauses 9, 20, 22 to 24 and 26. There is hardly any doubt that the trust in question was created to escape wealth tax. But the question is whether the assessee has succeeded in doing so. The assessee's difficulty appears to be that he wants to avoid tax but not give up the property. The Family Charitable Trust is not mentioned as one of the beneficiaries in clause 9 which specifically says that the interests created by the deed shall vest in the respective beneficiaries immediately. This clause is unambiguous. The effect of that clause is that the assets made over to the Trust vested in the trustees immediately on the execution of the Trust deed for the benefit of the beneficiaries namely, the three minor children of the Settlor. We have earlier seen that clause 21 gives absolute discretion to the trustees to accumulate the income of the trustees immediately on the execution of the Trust deed for the benefit of the beneficiaries namely, the three minor children of the Settlor. We have earlier seen that clause 21 gives absolute discretion to the trustees to accumulate the income of the trust property during the minority of the beneficiaries and make it over to the Charitable Trust. It is merely a permissive provision. The strength of that provision is corroded by clause 26 which confers power on the trustees to spend out of the income of the trust properties even during the minority of the beneficiaries for their maintenance, education, health, marriage and advancement. The trust deed confers on the Settlor (assessee) an effective control over the trust property. During his lifetime, he is the managing trustee. He had appointed the other trustees for a period of one year. Thereafter, it was open to him to appoint any other person as a co-trustee for such period as thinks fit. If we take into consideration all the provisions of the deed, there can be hardly any doubt that the Settlor has a complete and effective control over the properties settled. To summarise, the settlement is made for the benefit of the minor children. The income of the property settled could be utilised for the benefit of the minor children. The income of the property settled could be utilised for the benefit of the minors even during the period of their minority. The trust properties vested in the trustee for the benefit of the settlor's minor children even from the date of trust. Only the income accumulated. If any, during the minority of the beneficiaries have to be made over to the Family Charitable Trust. Hence, in substance the trust was created for the benefit of the minor children of the Settlor. The real purpose of the Settlor was to provide for the maintenance, education, health, marriage and advancement of his minor children during their minority and pass over the assets to them after they become majors. The benefit to the Family Charitable Trust, if any, is merely incidental.