Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee after considering the submissions of the assessee and the facts of the case, by observing as under: -

"7.13 To conclude, the fact of the matter being that the corpus of the trust inc1ude fUn4s borrowed or raised by the trustee and settlement of all properties or property, movable or immovable. Accordingly, on sale of the above said property The year :1982 by Shri Anthony Pattrick Lewis to the appellant trust, the trustees applied for a loan of Rs. 10 lac and- the appellant trust entered into two agreements with the State Bank of Patiala, one for loan of Rs. 10'l.ad and another for leasing out. the said property after taking deposit of Rs.6 lac from the bank which was utilised to make payment to Shri Anthony Patrick Lewis towards the sale consideration. 01 the said property. I, therefore; hold. that the trust has validly come into existence. The AO has proceeded on the premise that in a true trust, the settlor, trustee, and the beneficiary are not the same and, accordingly, it cannot be said that the appellant is a trust falling within the meaning of clause

(iv) to Sec. 160(1) to be termed as representative assessee, and treated the appellant trust as an 'AOP'. As seen above, though Shri Anthony Patrick Lewis is one of the trustees, he has sold his property to the Trust It is also seen that Mr. Ashlyn Sena is the settlor of the Trust and the trustees, are Anthony Patrick Lewis, Dr. Norman F. Lewis and Mr. Jude F. Sena, and the property from which rent is received by the trust, was sold by Mr. Anthony Patrick Lewis to the appellant trust in the year 1982. The trust has been created by the Settlor as he bears towards beneficiaries in order to make deposition in their favour and for diverse other good cause and as per the Trust Deed, the distribution of income among the beneficiaries has to be in terms mentioned in Chapter IV of the Trust Deed. I, accordingly, delete the addition of rental income of Rs.1,64,10,950/-. under the head 'Other Income' in the hands if the Trust by treating it as an AOP and hold that the share of the beneficiaries being determinate, is taxable in their hands."

Aggrieved, now Revenue is in second appeal before Tribunal.

7. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Before us, now the assessee contended that the provisions of section 164 of the Act is applicable where shares of the beneficiaries are unknown and in that situation a trustee is liable as a representative assessee either at maximum marginal rate of tax or at normal rate depending upon the nature of income or nature of trust. Since, the facts in the assessee's case are different the provisions of section 164 of the Act are not applicable. It was contended that the assessee is not an AOP but a family trust. It was claimed that the trust is created for the sole motive of the benefit of the settlor/ contributor and the trust has three constituents i.e. settlor, contributor and beneficiaries. It was claimed all the constituents are independent and distinct. The assessee before us explained that the beneficiaries whose shares are determinate and they have included the income in their respective return of income including allocated share from the assessee. The assessee has filed complete details, which will show that the tax paid by the beneficiaries on their allocated income with regard to each of the assessment years, which is as under: -

10. In the present case before us also, we are of the view that the assessee is a trust validly came into existence and all the parties i.e. settlor, trustees and beneficiaries are the same and the assessee being a trust fall under section 161 (1) of the Act not liable to tax in its hand because the beneficiaries have already declared the income in their hands. The trustee is not to be assessed for all the income which the trustee receives where the beneficiaries are known and their shares are determinate as in the present case. Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.