ANILKUMAR B LASKARI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question of law which has been referred to us for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench `B' (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, has to be answered in the affirmative in view of the settled legal position.

(2.) THERE was an HUF consisting of Shri Hariprasad Durgaprasad Laskari, his son Shri Anilkumar, the assessee (hereinafter referred to as "the assessee and his wife, Vidyaben (mother of the assessee). The assessee married one Jyotiben on May 20, 1956. THERE was a partition of the properties of the HUF on 24th July, 1956, in which the assessee received shares worth Rs. 25,516 and cash amount of Rs. 75,000. On the next day, i.e., on July 25, 1956, the assessee settled certain properties which included the shares which he had received on the partition as aforesaid and other shares which he had received by way of gift on a trust. He executed a deed of trust settling these properties on a trust. The trust was created for the benefit of the settlor and his wife, each of whom was to be paid Rs. 100 per month out of the income of the trust up to March 31, 1971. Under the provisions made in the deed of trust, if the settlor, that is the assessee, were alive on April 1, 1971, the corpus of the trust fund together with accumulations of income was to be transferred to him "absolutely and as the absolute owner thereof" by the trustees. In other words, an obligation was cast on the trustees to transfer the corpus of the trust and accumulated income to the assessee, if he were alive on April 1, 1971. It is not necessary to set out the other provisions made in the trust, as they are not relevant for the purpose of this reference.

(3.) THE manner in which the question is framed makes it clear that the only ground on which the validity of alienation by way of deed of settlement dated July 25, 1956, was challenged was that although the assessee was the sole surviving coparcener, he had no right to dispose of the coparcenary property as if it were his separate property, inasmuch as he had a wife living when the alienation was made. As observed at the outset the legal position on this controversy is well settled. In this connection, we need only to refer para. 257 at p. 320 under the caption :