1990 (11) TMI 188 - AT - Income Tax

Appeals Allowed: Income Not Cross-Gifts, Business Activity Basis.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the CIT's orders. It held that Section 64(1)(vii) was not applicable, the transactions did not constitute ... Adequate Consideration, Association Of Persons, Minor Child Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 64(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act.2. Validity of the CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263.3. Determination of whether the transactions constituted cross-gifts.4. Nature of income arising from the trusts' business activities.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Section 64(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act:The CIT initiated proceedings under Section 263, believing the ITO's assessments were erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest. The CIT argued that the provisions of Section 64(1)(vii) were applicable because the two brothers, Pararam Karamchand and Gurdasmal Karamchand, created trusts for each other's minor children, indirectly transferring assets without adequate consideration. The CIT relied on the decisions of the Calcutta High Court in Sital Chowdhury v. CIT and the Supreme Court in CIT v. C.M. Kothari to support this view. However, the Tribunal found that the trusts were created on different dates with different amounts, and the income arose from business activities managed by the trustees, not directly from the transferred assets. The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 64(1)(vii) could not be invoked, as the income did not arise directly or indirectly from the transfer of assets.2. Validity of the CIT's Assumption of Jurisdiction under Section 263:The CIT assumed jurisdiction under Section 263, believing the ITO had not adequately considered the facts and circumstances under which the trusts were formed. The Tribunal agreed that the CIT was justified in initiating proceedings under Section 263, as the ITO had not fully examined the relevant facts. However, the Tribunal ultimately disagreed with the CIT's conclusion on the applicability of Section 64(1)(vii).3. Determination of Whether the Transactions Constituted Cross-Gifts:The Tribunal examined whether the transactions between the two brothers constituted cross-gifts. The Tribunal noted that the trusts were created on different dates, with different amounts, and for different numbers of beneficiaries. Citing the decision in Jayantilal S. Porwal's case, the Tribunal found that the transactions did not constitute cross-gifts, as there was no intimate connection between the transfers, and the time gap between the settlements was seven months.4. Nature of Income Arising from the Trusts' Business Activities:The Tribunal emphasized that the income arising from the trusts was generated through business activities conducted by the trustees, not directly from the settled amounts. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Prem Bhai Parekh, which held that the connection between the transfer of assets and the income must be proximate. In this case, the income was a result of the business operations and management by the trustees, not the initial transfer of assets. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the income could not be attributed to the transferred assets under Section 64(1)(vii).Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the CIT's orders. The Tribunal held that Section 64(1)(vii) was not applicable, the transactions did not constitute cross-gifts, and the income arose from business activities managed by the trustees, not directly from the transferred assets. The Tribunal's decision was supported by precedents, including the Supreme Court's rulings in Prem Bhai Parekh and Prahladrai Agarwala's cases.