Section 167B not applicable when Deity is sole, determinate trust beneficiary; income taxed at individual slab rates

ITAT held that s.167B is inapplicable where the sole beneficiary of a trust is a Deity whose beneficial interest and share of income are definite and not indeterminate. The trust, created in 1958, irrevocably mandates that its entire income be used for the upkeep of the Deity, making the Deity the sole and determinate beneficiary. As the Deity is a juristic person assessable in the status of an "individual," the income of the trust is chargeable at the normal slab rates applicable to an individual and not at the maximum marginal rate. The assessee's appeal was allowed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the income of a trust whose sole beneficiary is a Deity is taxable at the maximum marginal rate under section 167B of the Income-tax Act or at the normal slab rates applicable to an individual.

1.2 Whether an artificial juridical person in the form of a Deity, being the sole beneficiary of a trust, is to be treated as having the status of an "individual" for rate-of-tax purposes.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Applicability of section 167B and rate of tax (MMR vs. individual slab rates)

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.1 Section 167B provides that where the individual shares of the members of an association of persons or body of individuals (including an artificial juridical person, unless excluded) in the whole or any part of the income are indeterminate or unknown, tax shall be charged on the total income at the maximum marginal rate.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.2 The Tribunal noted that the trust was created in 1958 and, under the trust deed, the entire income is to be used for the upkeep of the Deity, and the Deity is the sole beneficiary of the trust.

2.3 It was undisputed that the status declared in the return was that of an artificial juridical person, and the income as returned was not in dispute. The only controversy was the applicable rate of tax.

2.4 The Tribunal examined section 167B and held that it applies where the individual shares of members/beneficiaries in the income of an association of persons, body of individuals, or artificial juridical person are indeterminate or unknown.

2.5 In the facts of the case, since the Deity is the sole beneficiary, there is no apportionment of income among multiple beneficiaries, and it cannot be said that the "shares" of beneficiaries are indeterminate or unknown; the entire income belongs to one beneficiary.

2.6 On this factual basis, the Tribunal held that the precondition for invoking section 167B-indeterminate or unknown shares of members/beneficiaries-is not satisfied.

2.7 Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the application of the maximum marginal rate merely on the basis that the assessee was coded as an artificial juridical person or that the CPC software treated it as falling under section 167B.

Conclusions

2.8 Section 167B is not applicable where the Deity is the sole and determinate beneficiary of the trust.

2.9 The income of the assessee in such circumstances cannot be taxed at the maximum marginal rate under section 167B and must instead be subjected to normal slab rates.

Issue 2: Status of a Deity as an "individual" for tax rate purposes

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.10 The Tribunal referred to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in "Official Trustee of West Bengal vs. CIT" that a Deity, being a juristic person, is to be treated as having the status of an "individual" for income-tax purposes.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.11 The Tribunal accepted that a Deity is a juristic person capable of holding property and receiving income.

2.12 Applying the ratio of the Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal held that, for purposes of rate of tax and slab benefits, the Deity, as a juristic person, is to be regarded as having the status of an "individual."

2.13 Since the entire income of the trust belongs to the sole beneficiary, i.e., the Deity, the applicable tax rates and basic exemption limit should be those prescribed for an individual.

Conclusions

2.14 A Deity, being a juristic person and the sole beneficiary of the trust, is to be treated as an "individual" for the purpose of determining applicable tax rates.

2.15 The tax slabs and basic exemption limit applicable to an individual must be applied to the assessee, and the computation at maximum marginal rate is unsustainable.

2.16 The impugned order sustaining taxation at maximum marginal rate is set aside, and the assessee's appeal is allowed.

---