Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This appeal by the Revenue is arising out of the order of CIT (A)-7, Mumbai in appeal No. CIT (A)-7/IT.02/Rg.16(3)/2014-15 dated 28-01-2015. The Assessment was framed by ACIT Circle-16(3), Mumbai for the A.Y. 2007-08 vide order dated 18- 03-2013 u/s 143(3) read with section of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act').

2. The only issue in this appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by AO on account of the receipts on dissolution of trusts under section 56(2)(vi) of the Act as income from other sources. For this Revenue has raised following three grounds: -

"1. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justifying in holding that addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.1,35,90,740/- on account of receipts from dissolution of Sant Trust cannot be taxed as income from other sources under section 56(2)(vi) of the Act and consequently giving relief of Rs.1,35,90,740/- to the assessee.

Mrs. Sandhya A. Pratap (2007-08) (In ITA No.2210/Mum/2015)

3. At the outset the assessee filed copy of Tribunal's order in assessee's husband case wherein exactly identical facts are discussed. The issue was considered by the AO and AO has noted the following facts: -

"A) Additions on proceeds arising due to dissolutions of Sant Trust:-

1.1 In this case, a private Trust --Sant Trust was settled by Mrs. Vinodini C Pratap, mother of the assessee, by Indenture of Trust dated 20th January, 1978. This Trust is not registered as a Trust u/s 12AA - a fact confirmed for the period 1978 to 1980 by O/o. the DIT(E), Mumbai.

(i) that there should be a sum of money; (ii) that its aggregate value exceeds ` 50,000; (iii) that it should be received "without consideration"

by an individual or HUF; and (iv) in any previous year, from any person, between the period 1st April 2006 and 1st October 2009. The said clause will not be applicable to the persons described in clauses (a) to (g), as mentioned in the proviso to clause (vi), which is reproduced Mrs. Sandhya A. Pratap (2007-08) (In ITA No.2210/Mum/2015) above; The word "Relative" has been defined in Explanation which is also reproduced above. Unless all the aforementioned ingredients are fulfilled, the provisions of clause (vi) of s/section (2) of section 56 of the Act could not be applied. It is the main case of learned Counsel for the assessee that the amount has not been received by the assessee without consideration and that part of the condition cannot be said to have been fulfilled, therefore, it will be material to see that as to whether this amount can be said to have been received without consideration. If it is held that the said amount is not received by the assessee without consideration, then clause (vi), s/section (2) of section 56 of the Act will not be applicable. The facts are not in dispute. The assessee has received this amount on dissolution of trust in the capacity of beneficiaries. The status of beneficiary has already been accepted by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) when she has held that "in the background of the provisions of Indian Trust Act and the dissolution of the trust, appellant did not receive the sum of ` 1,36,595, in his capacity as a trustee i.e., representative assessee for the purpose of trust". The fact that the assessee has received the amount in the capacity of beneficiaries has also not been controverted, therefore, the amount received by the trust is in pursuance of dissolution of trust. The amount received in pursuance of dissolution of trust cannot be termed to be an amount received by the beneficiaries "without consideration". The fact that the trust had borne the tax at maximum marginal rate on its income has also not been controverted. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the addition cannot be upheld on the applicability of clause (vi) of sub- section (2) of section 56 of the Act, as the money received by the assessee is not "without consideration".