COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PUNJAB, .JAMMU & KASHMIR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PATIALA vs. RAGHBIR SINGH

CIVIL APPEAL No. 96/1964Supreme Court[1965] 3 S.C.R. 68409 April 1965Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI OF INCOME8 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the income from the shares arose to the trustees and was liable to be applied for the purposes outlined in the deed. The direction to pay off the settlor's debts, which the settlor was obligated to discharge, did not amount to a re-transfer of income or assets to the settlor, nor did it confer upon the settlor a power to reassume control over them. The assets and income were impressed with the obligations of the trust. While the settlor benefited from the satisfaction of his liabilities, this benefit did not attract the first proviso to Section 16(1)(c). The proviso contemplates situations with an explicit provision for retransfer of income or assets, or for the settlor to reassume power, directly or indirectly. Cases where a settlement exists but lacks such provisions do not fall under the proviso, even if the settlor derives some benefit. The Court approved the decisions in Ramji Keshavji v. C.I.T. Bombay and D. R. Shahapura v. C.I.T., Bombay, which held similar provisions did not attract the proviso. The appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The respondent, Raghbir Singh, executed a deed of trust on April 14, 1953, settling 300 shares of Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Ltd. The trust deed directed the trustees to first pay off the settlor's debts, as detailed in Schedule 'A', and thereafter apply the income and property for other specified purposes, including maintenance of children and grandchildren, and charitable activities. The respondent was allotted these shares upon partition of his joint Hindu family and was made liable for a business debt of Rs. 3,91,875/-. The Income-tax Officer considered the trust fictitious. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held the transfer of shares was not irrevocable, making the respondent liable under the proviso to Section 16(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Tribunal upheld this, and the High Court ruled against taxing the income in the hands of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax appealed to the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the direction in the deed of trust for the trustees to pay off the settlor's debts makes the trust revocable under the first proviso to Section 16(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, thereby rendering the trust income taxable in the hands of the settlor? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the trust was irrevocably created and that the income from the trust property arose to the trustees. The primary purpose of paying off the settlor's debts did not constitute a re-transfer of income or assets, nor did it grant the settlor a power to reassume control over them. Therefore, the first proviso to Section 16(1)(c) was not attracted. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue contended that the provision for paying off the settlor's debts, even if indirectly, meant that the trust income was effectively being re-transferred to the settlor or that the settlor retained indirect power over it, thus falling within the ambit of the first proviso to Section 16(1)(c).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 16(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PUN.JAB, .JAMMU & KASHMIR, IDMACHAL PRADESH, PATIALA v. RAGHBIR SINGH April 9, 1965 [K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH ANDS. M. SIKRI, JJ.] Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), s. 16(1)(c)-Deed of trust-Trustees directed to pay debts of settlor and only thereafter A B to apply trust income and property to the various purposes of the trust-Such direction whether makes trust revocable-Whether pro- C perty of trust indirectly re-transferred to the settlor-Income from trust whether to be ta.ied in hands of settlor.

The respondent executed a deed of trust in respect of certain shares owned by him in a company. The deed directed the trustees to apply the income and property of the trust in the first instance for paying off the settlor's debts, and thereafter for other purposes of the trust. fo proceedings under the Indian In~ome-tax Act, 1922 n it was held by the Income-tax Officer that the trust was a fictitious transaction. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the transfer of the shares for the purpose of the trust Vl'llS not irrevocable and therefore under the proviso to s. 16(l)(c) the respondent could not escape liability. The

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →