Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(1) Shri Murasoli Maran (2) Smt. Mallika Maran (3) Shri Kalanithi Maran Out of three Trustees, Shri Murasoli Maran was admitted in the hospital and other two Trustees participated in the Trust meeting which was held on 05.06.2003. The two Trustees extended the period of the Trust in the absence of Shri Murasoli Maran.

According to the Ld. D.R., Shri Murasoli Maran had not nominated anybody to attend the meeting. Therefore, the extension of Trust for another period of 20 years was not justified. Hence, the assessee-trust was assessed under Section 167 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') at maximum marginal rate. The CIT(Appeals), without appreciating the fact that the extension which was said to be approved in the resolution dated 05.06.2003, held C.O. Nos.163 & 164/Mds/16 that the extension was not valid and allowed the appeal of the assessee.

6. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The Assessing Officer found that there are three Trustees in the assessee-trust, out of which one was indisposed and admitted in the hospital for treatment. The remaining two Trustees attended the meeting held C.O. Nos.163 & 164/Mds/16 on 05.06.2003 and passed the resolution for extending the trust for another 20 years. This resolution was found to be not valid by the Assessing Officer since one of the Trustees, namely, Shri Murasoli Maran could not attend the meeting on 05.06.2003. It is not in dispute that Shri Murasoli Maran was admitted in the hospital and he was taking treatment. Totally there were three Trustees, out of which two trustees attended the meeting, therefore, the resolution was validly passed by the majority of Trustees. Even if Shri Murasoli Maran was present at the meeting held on 05.06.2003 and objected to passing of the resolution, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the decision taken by the majority of Trustees has to be taken as valid decision for extending the Trust for another 20 years. Therefore, absence of Shri Murasoli Maran in the meeting on 05.06.2003 would not be of any consequence at all. Moreover, at no point of time either said Shri Murasoli Maran or his legal heir objected to the resolution passed on 05.06.2003 extending the trust period for another 20 years. In those circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly found that the assessee-trust is eligible to claim benefit available under Section 161 of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Assessing Officer to assess the income at maximum C.O. Nos.163 & 164/Mds/16 marginal rate under Section 167 of the Act is not justified. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.