COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. MAHARAJA DALJITSINHJI TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following questions and referred to us for our consideration :

(2.) THE assessee is a private discretionary trust. We are concerned with the asst. year 1972 73.

(3.) ON the question as to whether Rani Surendrakumari relinquished her right as a beneficiary, the Tribunal has adverted to the deed of relinquishment and a categoric finding has been rendered on appreciation and assessment of the recitals therein that she had released her beneficial interest and she was in fact not entitled to any income as a beneficiary in view of the relinquishment during the relevant previous year. We find that this finding rendered by the Tribunal is purely in the factual sphere and we have not been shown any feature to differ from the view taken by the Tribunal in the factual sphere. We could not characterise the finding rendered by the Tribunal as perverse or as totally unsustainable. Once we accept the finding of fact rendered by the Tribunal, squarely the assessee gets the benefit of proviso (i) to Sub S. (1) of S. 164 of the Act as the section stood then. In view of the above discussion, our answer on question No. 2 is that the finding of the Tribunal that Rani Surendrakumari had given up all her claim, right, title and interest as a beneficiary under the deed of relinquishment dt. 19th Jan., 1972 and as she was not entitled to any income in view of this relinquishment and since other beneficiaries did not have any taxable income, the assessee was liable to tax at the appropriate rate of tax and not at the higher rate of 65%, is correct. In view of our above answer to question No. 2, as a necessary corollary, question No. 1 has also got to be answered in favour of the assessee. The reference stands disposed of as above. We make no order as to costs.