Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. With regard to question No. 2, the factual controversy and the factual data required to be considered are elaborately stated in the two orders passed by the Id. Members. After hearing the representatives of both the sides, I am inclined to agree with the view expressed by the Id. Judicial Member, the view expressed in favour of the assessee. It is an admitted position that Section 13(3) is not applicable to M/s. Kapoorchand (P.) Ltd. who have taken on hire two chinema houses and, therefore, the income earned by M/s. Kapurchand Pvt. Ltd. is not to be considered as income diverted to prohibited persons mentioned in Section 13(3). I also do not find any material on the basis of which it can be said that M/s Kapurchand Pvt. Ltd. were obliged further to give on hire these two cinema houses to a firm in which relatives of the trustees were interested. M/s. Kapurchand Pvt. Ltd. had free will either to run the cinema houses on their own to exploit the hired property in any manner it liked. Therefore, merely because it had chosen to exploit the property through some agency, in which the relatives of the trustees are interested, it cannot be said that income or property is diverted to the prohibited persons. Considering the factual data in respect of the income earned by the assessee as given on page 174 of the paper book, I find that in assessment year 1979-80, when the properties are rented, the income has increased from what it was earlier when the cinemas were run by the trust itself. Besides, grant of sub-lease by the lessees to a firm, in which relatives of the trustee are interested, can also be out of precaution to preserve and protect the trust property, from the adverse claims that might be apprehended in the present day circumstances and which might be put up by the lessees, who are not in any way, associated with the trustees. This aspect gains much more significance because the income of the trust has increased inspite of the relatives of the trustees having been involved. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee that no part of the amount of Rs. 6,000 received from the lessee was diverted to prohibited persons and the assessments of lessees as also sub-lessees are completed, and agreements are treated as genuine without there being any variation in the incomes declared. The learned Accountant Member has pointed out that one of the two partners of the sub-lessee firm was a lady and it was not known whether one or both of the partners possessed any special qualifications. This aspect is not relevant in view of the above findings. Moreover, it is not denied that they did engage themselves in attending to the business and devoted time and energy and also undertook the incidental risk that is normal in running the business of any type. It is further stated by him that the management and the control of the two cinemas is fully in the household of the trustee. This aspect alone on the face of the facts considered by the ld. Judicial Member, cannot advance the case of the revenue. Moreover realities of life have also to be kept in mind because even when the management and control is in the hands of close relatives, yet there are attendant risks which need not be elaborated.