Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(b) The surviving trustee would spend amounts in her discretion to carry on the seba of a Deity Sri Sri Lachminarayan Thakur installed at Bhagyakul;

(c) The surviving trustee was empowered to spend amounts for the marriage expenses of the members of the family of the settlor including daughters and grand-daughters in the male line ;

(d) All expenses of the children and grandchildren in the male line were directed to be borne by the surviving trustee from the income of the trust including expenses for education abroad ;

(e) The surviving trustee was directed to bear the expenses of the education of Jaladhilal Roy, the youngest son of the settlor, abroad to the extent of Rs. 600 per month ;

(f) The surviving trustee was directed to satisfy and settle the legitimate debts and dues of Rangalal Roy, the second son of the settlor, to the Co-operative Hindusthan Bank Ltd.

(g) The surviving trustee was directed to pay to Nalini Sundari, the married daughter of the settlor, Rs. 50 per month for her pocket expenses and to provide for clothing of the latter's husband and children to the extent the surviving trustee would think fit and proper. The surviving trustee was also directed to pay to the said daughter a sum of Rs. 15,000 for her absolute benefit.

6. Nundalal Roy, the settlor, died on August 5, 1930. After the death of Nundalal, Shyamrangini Roy Chowdhurani continued as the surviving trustee. During her period of trusteeship, Jaladhilal Roy, the youngest son of the settlor, died.

7. On September 19, 1940, Shyamrangini Roy Chowdhurani, the surviving trustee, executed two deeds. By the first deed, Shyamrangini Roy Chowdhurani, the surviving trustee, relinquished her share in the estate of Jaladhilal which devolved on her, in favour of her three remaining sons including the beneficial interest under the said deed dated September 12, 1929.

12. A contention made that the consideration for the said debt in favour of the charitable hospital was the relinquishment by Shyamrangini of her interest in the estate of Jaladhilal Roy, the predeceased son, was not accepted by the Appellate Controller.

13. The accountable person preferred a further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal from the order of the Appellate Controller. It was contended before the Tribunal that the deceased succeeded to an estate which was subject to a charge created and that the decision of the Assistant Controller that Section 44(a) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, was attracted to the facts was not correct. It was submitted that though in the deed dated September 19, 1940, the three surviving sons had been described as settlors, they were not owners of the estate and did not have title to the properties. Shyamrangini, the surviving trustee, being alive, they had only a beneficial interest in the trust properties. It was contended that it was Shyamrangini, the surviving trustee, who had transferred the funds in favour of the charitable hospital and had created the charge. It was also contended that in the wealth-tax assessment for 1957-58, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had accepted the validity of the charge and had given relief accordingly. It was further urged that if Rangalal, as one of the settlors, had created the charge, the same was for consideration.