Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

16 By the assessee's submissions dated 15/03/2021, the assesse was claimingthat these remittances to his family members are the only outward remittances madeby him and that he had neither made any investment nor having any aggregateaccount balance in either The Windsor Trust or The Dalham Trust.
17 But as per the receipt of information by this office, it is clear that the assessee has invested Rs 24,09,00,431 in The Windsor Trust under the account number GGO04789 ADRO6332 in Guernsey and Rs2,00,23,778 in The Dalham Trust under the account number GG004793 ADR06332-in Guernsey. And as per the assessee's own submissions dated :-6-: BMA. No:01/Chny/2023 24/12/2018 he had stated that, The Windsor Trust and The Dalham Trust were formed by him as the Settlor and as the first beneficiary in 2003. Hence the, relation between, the assessee and the including his investments in them.

9.1.10 As per both the trust deeds, the settlor is authorised to be the Principal Beneficiary of the Trust Fund and pay the income from the Trust fund to the Principal Beneficiary - the settlor- Shri. NarayanaswamyRamamoorthyfor life.

Clause 3 in the Windsor Trust Settlement deed:

Clause 3 Principal Trust for Beneficiaries (Life Interest/Success;ye Life Interest] The Trustee shall hold the Trust Fund during the Trust Period upo trust.
3.1 to pay the income of the trust fund to the principal beneficiary(as defined in Part 1 of :-14-: BMA. No:01/Chny/2023 Schedule 4) for life ("the Life interest") and subject to that 3.2 to pay the income of the Trust fund to the successive Principal Beneficiary (as defined part II of Schedule 4) for life ("the successive Life interst")"
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,

12. In light of above factual background, if we examine the reasons given by the Assessing Officer to assessee the account balance in both trusts as undisclosed foreign asset/income of the assessee u/s. 10(3) of Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Asset) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, we find that the sole basis for the Assessing Officer to arrive at above conclusion is CRS information in Insight portal received by the Department, where aggregate account balance of Rs. 24,09,00,431/- was shown in the name of the Windsor Trust. The Assessing Officer on the basis of above information reached to the conclusion that the assessee is a Settlor of the trust and became principal beneficiary and consequently, whatever investment in the trust is undisclosed income/asset of the assessee u/s. 10(3) of Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Asset) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. We do not find any merits in the findings of the Assessing :-27-: BMA. No:01/Chny/2023 Officer for the simply reasons that, except CRS information, the Assessing Officer does not have any other evidence to allege that the assessee has made contribution to the above trusts. The Assessing Officer neither having the bank statement of the assessee to allege that the assessee has made outward remittance of funds, nor proved that the assessee is deriving any income from above trusts outside India. Although, initial contribution of 3,500 GBP towards corpus of the trust was shown to have paid by the assessee as a Settlor, but the assessee has proved that even said contribution was made by his son Shri. Balaji Ramamoorthy, a citizen of USA. The allegation of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) that, because the assessee is a settlor of the trust, he remains principal beneficiary is totally incorrect and devoid of merits, more particularly in the context when other trustee are managing the affairs of the trust and also beneficial owners of trust properties.