Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The ld. CIT(A), after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of various provisions of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Asset) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, opined that the assessee is a beneficial owner of the trust, which is evident from the various clauses of both trusts, where the assessee is retaining the power of revocation of the trust. Further, the power of revocation is with the assessee. The assessee is vested with :-11-: BMA. No:01/Chny/2023 absolute control over the trust. The management trust companies appointed as trustees are basically for managing the day-to-day activities of the trusts and they do not have power by deed to override the Settlor by any means. The assessee settled the trust with initial contribution of 3,500 Pounds. The assessee is not furnishing the bank account statement of the assessee for the period relating to 2003 on one hand and on the other hand, he has claimed that his son paid the initial contribution for which no evidence has been furnished. Further, as per facts available on record, there are enough pointers towards indirect payments for the assets of the trust, but source of which has not been satisfactorily explained by the assessee. The assessee has given unlimited personal guarantee for availing loan from bank for purchase of property. This is a tactic admission that the trustees is only a professional service providers and the assessee is a sole beneficiary for life directly and indirectly identifiable in the trusts concerned. Since, the assessee is a beneficial owner of both trusts and failed to establish source for investment in trusts, the Assessing Officer has rightly invoked the provision and Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Asset) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 and treated value of investment in :-12-: BMA. No:01/Chny/2023 both trusts as undisclosed foreign asset u/s. 10(3) of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Asset) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. Thus, rejected arguments of the assessee and sustained additions made by the Assessing Officer towards investment in undisclosed foreign assets. The relevant findings of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:

9.1.13 BGL Reads Trust company Limited for Windsor Trust and Spread Trustee company Ltd for Dalham Trust are the 'Original Trustees' which are entrusted with the management and administration of the Trusts as per Schedule 1 of the Trust deeds.

9.1.14 The Trusts are revocable by the assessee Settler.

Revocable Trust of initial and additional Property /Power of Revocation:

The Original Trustees or the trustees for the time being of this Trust (the Trustees") shall hold the Trust Fund upon this Trust and may accept any Property as an addition to the Trust Fund and further this Settlement Deed is wholly revocable by Deed by the Settler during his life subject to the provisions specified in Schedule 7 ("the Power of Revocation").

9.4 Quoting certain decisions, the AR stated that the criteria which ought to be fulfilled for a person to be :-17-: BMA. No:01/Chny/2023 called a beneficial owner are the following: a. The Person should exercise control of the trust or have the right to exercise control.

b. The Person should hold an interest in the trust c. The Person ought to have contributed in some way to the trust.

Even going by this, the assessee is clearly the beneficial owner. By the Power of Revocation, the assessee is vested with absolute control over the Trusts. The Revocation Clause in the trust deeds actually make the trustees subservient to the Settlor Principal beneficiary. As per clause 13 of the Trust Deeds read with Schedule 5, the Settlor is the Appointer and he can appoint any person as Trustee. The management trust companies appointed as trustees are basically for managing the day-to-day activities of the Trusts and they do not have power by Deed to override the Settler by any means. Assessee kept silent again on the fees paid to these trust management companies and source for the same. Thus, (a) above gets totally satisfied. Para 9.1.10 above is clear about the interest of the assessee in the trusts and thus, (b) above also gets satisfied. Assessee settled the Trusts with initial contribution of 3,500 pounds sterling each for the Trusts; the assessee is not furnishing the bank account statement of the assessee for the period relating to 2003; on the other hand, it is claimed that his son paid the initial contribution, for which no evidence furnished with reference to any bank account details of son; further as per the facts enlisted in para 9 .1 above, there are enough pointers towards indirect payments towards the assets of the trusts, but source of which has not been satisfactorily explained by the assessee. Thus,

13. Further, the value of investment in Windsor Trust is about Rs. 24,09,00,431/-, which represents the value of an immovable property at Flat no. 01/10, Eaton Gate, London The source for said investment was explained out of 2 million :-28-: BMA. No:01/Chny/2023 GBP loan availed from EFC Private Bank. The financial statement of the Windsor Trust disclosed value of property with a corresponding loan liability from bank. This is further fortified by loan sanction letter of EFC Private Bank. Therefore, from the above it is undoubtedly clear that the account balance in the Windsor Trust amounting to Rs. 24,09,00,431/- represented as an immovable property in London has been explained out of loan borrowed from bank. The assessee neither contributed any money nor received any benefit from the trust. Therefore, the findings of the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee is a beneficial owner of the trust, because of a Settlor and also certain clauses in trust deed with reference to revocation of trust is totally baseless and devoid of merits. Further, the Enforcement Directorate, Chennai Zonal Office, has issued show cause notice dated 26.12.2022 in connection with section 16 of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, regarding enquiry about two trusts and investment made in the above trusts. The Enforcement Directorate, in the said show cause notice in Para 2.16 clearly stated that, the property purchased in the name of the Windsor Trust is sourced out of borrowed money from the bank to the extent of 2 million GBP and the appellant Shri. :-29-: BMA. No:01/Chny/2023 Naranayanaswamy Ramamoorthy, has not made any investment/payment in Windsor Trust. Further, the initial contribution of 3,500 GBP and subsequent contribution has been owned up and explained by Shri. Balaji Ramamoorthy, son of the appellant, which is evident from confirmation letter filed by the son of the assessee. From the above, it is clear that the account balance in the Windsor Trust considered by the Assessing Officer for the purpose of assessment in the hands of the assessee u/s. 10(3) of Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Asset) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, stands fully explained by the trust with known source of income. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer is erred in making additions towards account balance in Windsor Trust under the account no. GG004789_ADR06332 in Guernsey in the hands of the assessee.