CIT Vs. ABDULGAFUR A. MISTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . S. N. Soparkar, learned senior counsel, who was earlier representing the interest of the assessee, had informed on 24 -7 -2006, that he would not be appearing in the matter. The assessee Mr. Abdulgafur A. Mistry had acknowledged the fact that Mr. Soparkar would not be appearing and that the court be requested to dispose of the matter in accordance with law.

(2.) THE letter of Mr. Soparkar along with the letter of Mr. Abdulgafur Mistry the assessee are placed on the records. We proceed to decide the matter.

(3.) FROM the facts, it appears that the matter relates to the assessment years 4 1982 -83 and 1983 -84 corresponding to Samvat Years 2037 and 2038. The assessee is one Abdulgafur Mistry, an individual. He was a partner in a firm which carried on business in the name of M/s. Allaudin Pirbhai Mistry. The other partner in the said firm was Smt. Sakuranbibi, mother of the assessee. On 15 -3 -1977, the said Sakuranbibi executed a will whereunder she bequeathed certain ornaments belonging to her in favour of three minor children of the assessee and one minor child of the assessee's brother -Sallaudin. All the four children, in fact, are grand children of Smt. Sakuranbibi. It was also observed and mentioned in the will that on the death of the said Sakuranbibi, those four minor children would be entitled to all movable properties belonging to her. The assessee's brother's wife -Smt. Zubedabibi was appointed as an executor of the will. Smt. Zubedabibi and the assessee's wife -Mehrunnisa were described as the guardians and trustees of the minor children. It was also mentioned in the will that 20 per cent, share belonging to Sakuranbibi in the said partnership would go to the children and the executor Smt. Zubedabibi would be entitled to join the partnership in place of the deceased. Accordingly, Smt. Zubedabibi joined the partnership. The will also mentioned that the profit income from the partnership would be divided in equal share and would be deposited in four different accounts of each child. Smt. Zubedabibi accordingly went on doing so. In the matter of income -tax, when the matter came before the assessing officer, he held that as trust was created in favour of the minors, the assessee was answerable. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, after going through the provisions of the will, observed that the words, trustee, executor and guardian, have been used as synonyms and that they are loose expressions. It also observed that on the facts, it would be clear that no trust was created, but, in fact, Zubedabibi was asked to work as a trustee because trust or faith was reposed in her by the testator. The Tribunal also observed that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, as a fact no trust was ever created. It, accordingly, decided the matter against the interest of the revenue.