9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (9) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had two sons, Gunwant and Chaitanya. By a deed of trust dated 12th of February, 1957, he transferred certain properties of the value of ₹ 30,13,875 to the three trustees appointed by him therein to hold the same upon trust therein set out. After reciting the various properties situate in Ahmedabad and Bombay, which are the subject-matter of the deed of trust, the deed, inter alia, recites as follows : "And whereas the settlor is desirous of settling the said lands hereditaments and premises more particularly described in the first, second and third schedules hereunder written for the benefit of his sons Gunwant and Chaitanya both minors under the age of eighteen years ..... in the manner hereinafter appearing...... NOW THIS IN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said Gunwant for the trustees shall hold the said several lands hereditaments and premises hereby settled for the benefit of the said Chaitanya and his child or children....... in trust absolutely for the child or children of the said Gunwant." 5. The Wealth-tax Officer, by his order dated the 31st March, 1959, held that the properties covered by the deed of trust were undervalued by the assessee, and valuing them at ₹ 30,13,875, assessed the net wealth of the assessee at ₹ 35,30,932, ignoring altogether the deed of trust, holding that there was no transfer thereunder of any of the said properties. Contesting the inclusion of these properties in his net wealth, the assessee filed an appeal before the Assistant Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the trustees under clauses 3 and 5 of the deed of trust in relation of the minor son, Chaitanya, were includible in the assessee's total net wealth under section 4(1)(a)(ii) or section 4(iii). The Tribunal was of the view that sub-clause (ii) would not apply to the facts of the case and held that the case fell under sub-clause (iii). The Tribunal negatived the plea placed before it on behalf of the assessee, namely, that as the minor, Chaitanya, got only a life interest in the said properties, there was no transfer of the assets for the benefit of the minor child within the meaning of sub-clause (iii). While negativing this contention, the Tribunal observed that the fact that the minor child, namely, Chaitanya, got a benefit as a result ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fulfilled and, therefore, the only question that remains to be ascertained is whether these properties have been transferred by the assessee for the benefit of his minor child. Now the expression "for the benefit of" in this sub-clause has a wide meaning, thereby that if the transfer results in, or is made for the benefit of the minor child, such a transfer would fall within the ambit of sub-clause (a) (iii). The word "benefit" has not been used in this sub-clause in any technical meaning, and obviously, therefore, it has to be given its ordinary dictionary meaning. The benefit must, therefore, mean any interest created by or under the transfer which is intended to or results in something which benefits the minor child ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the transferred properties. It is only on and after his death that the trustees have to distribute the properties amongst his child or children, as the case may be, and under clause 5 of the trust deed, it is only in the case of his death without leaving any child or children surviving him that the income of the properties is to go to the other son Gunwant and on and after the death of the said Gunwant trustees are to hold the said properties in trust absolutely for the child or children of the said Gunwant. There can be no doubt that under the deed of trust, the minor Chaitanya, can claim the income of half of the transferred properties, and if the trustees were to decline to pay him, he would have the right to enforce his claim by an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
