TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings also the charging of FBT was raised by the erstwhile AO and was decided to consider this issue separately and the same was not concluded. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the justification of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding the re-assessment as valid is not disputed. Treating the assessee as AOP as against the status of a private discretionary trust as individual CIT(A) has rightly decided the issue in the light of various judicial decisions. The Ld. CIT(A) has interpreted the meaning of AOP on a comparison with the Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Indira Balkrishna [ 1960 (4) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] with that of the subsequent amendment by explanation to section 2(31) wherein the AOP can be form ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the assessee as against the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 09.12.2013 arising from the order passed by the AO relevant to assessment year (AY) 2006-07. The following grounds raised in the appeal are as under:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the Status of your appellant as AOP and not Individual. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT (Appeals) erred in not considering various Apex court and Supreme court ruling confirming the status of the private family Trust as Individual on a ground that such decision had been rendered in wealth tax cases and hence not acceptable in case of assessment under Income Tax act. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be set aside and treated as null and void. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, where there is no assessment order passed, there cannot be a notice for re-assessment/reopening inasmuch as the question of re-assessment arises only when there is an assessment in the first instance and hence, re-assessment order passed be set aside and traded as null and void. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that none appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of calls and even no application for adjournment was moved. On the other hand, Ld. DR was present in the court and was ready with arguments. Therefore, we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte with the assistance of the Ld. DR and the material placed on re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the status of assessee as AOP trust as against the contention of assessee that the trust is a private discretionary trust which ought to be regarded as an individual and not AOP and does not attract levy of FBT. The AO relied on the allotment of PAN to the assessee indicating the status as AOP. The assessee also alleged that the AO has not considered the deed of trust where assessee is a private discretionary family trust settled pursuant to an indenture dated 03.02.1999, where the beneficiaries of the trust are the two trustees, their respective spouses and their lineal descendants and the spouses of such lineal descendants as well as the Hindu Undivided Families of the lineal descendants. The beneficiaries of the Trust do not come togeth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertain expenses incurred for the benefit of privilege of employees will not be justifiable. The assessee also challenged the grounds of re-assessment on the ground of change of opinion based on audit objection and relied on various decisions. The assessee stated that since there was no scrutiny assessment u/s 115WE(3), the AO has no opportunity to form an opinion. These contentions were rejected by the AO and FBT was levied. Aggrieved by this, the assessee was in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has given a detail findings for each of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR500 (SC) wherein it was held that process u/s 115WE( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so not very relevant in view of the explanation provided to section 2(31) of the Act and the said circular merely refers to the difficulty in accepting the return by existing e-filing software if the status of private discretionary trust is shown as individual is also not disputed. 9. The Ld. AR has submitted a copy of the latest judgment of Madras High Court in CIT, Chennai vs. Shriram Ownership Trust, Chennai (2020) 122 taxman.com 155 (Madras), where the facts of the case are not identical with the present appeal before us and the said decision does not hold good for this case. Apart from this, there is no other material on record to take any other view than that of Ld. CIT(A) s findings. 10. In view of the above observation, we d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
