Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The assessees were also asked to establish that it is a proper Trust. The Assessing Officer ("AO"), vide orders passed under section 143(3) of the Act, did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and made addition on the basis, which is summarized by the AO as under: -

"Summary of Arguments:

1. Whereas in the case of the trust, settlor, contributor and beneficiaries, all have to be independent and distinct In the case of the assessee, the contributors are the beneficiaries themselves, therefore, the assessee cannot be treated as a trust, but as an AOP having members in the form of QUIs and, financial institution.

6. For reference, the grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No.2909/Mum./2023 are reproduced as under: -

"1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in considering the assessee as a Trust which does not fall within the meaning of section 61 to 63 of the I.T. Act, 1961."

2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in treating the assessee as a Trust, when the assessee, in principle, cannot be considered as a Trust as per the provisions of Indian Trust Act, 1882, in view of the Settlor and the Beneficiaries are the same and identical, as against the Settlor and Beneficiaries are different in an ideal Trust."

8. We find that recently the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of a Trust set-up by the ARCIL pursuant to provisions of SARFAESI Act and RBI Guidelines, in ARCIL Retail Loan Portfolio 004 B Trust Vs. ITO, in ITA No.256/Mum./2024, vide order dated 28/05/2024, for the assessment year 2016-17, after following the judicial precedents rendered on the similar issue observed as under: -

"5. The Assessing Officer ("AO") vide order dated 26/12/2018 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that in the present case, the beneficiaries in the assessee trust are the various QIBs who contributed funds in the trust and are also the beneficiaries. Thus, in the instant case, the settlor and beneficiaries are the same and identical. The AO further held that the trust has three constituents, i.e. settlor, contributor and beneficiary and all the three constituents are independent and distinct whereas in the present case, contributors are also the beneficiaries. Thus, so called trust has been created for the sole motive to the benefit of the settlor/contributor. Therefore, the AO held that the plea of the assessee that it is a trust is completely erroneous, and in fact, the assessee is only an AOP having the QIBs as members in the form of QIB/financial institutions.

"1. Whereas in the case o the trust, settlor, contributor and beneficiaries, all have to be independent and distinct. In the case of the assessee, the contributors are the beneficiaries themselves, therefore, the assessee cannot be treated as a trust, but as an AOP having several members in the form of QIBs and financial institution.

2) After its creation, the so-called trust entered into contribution assignment through offer document for the sole purpose of taking NPAs for sale at a profit.