2013 (7) TMI 621

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department JUDGMENT (The Judgment of the Court was made by Chitra Venkataraman, J.) The assessee filed the above Tax Case Appeals as against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to the assessment year 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 raising the following questions of law :- "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the cas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t was sham one. Even though, it mentioned about the shares of the beneficiaries, who are twenty three in number, which included Big HUF, Small HUF and Individual, who were identifiable and their shares were determined, the fact revealed that the very enquiry of the beneficiaries showed that they were not aware of the shares and some of them were not aware of the existence of the Trust. In the circ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....med the findings of the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved by this, the assessee went on further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, wherein, in Ground No.7, the assessee questioned the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax. 5. We find that the ground raised as regards the genuineness of the Trust was not considered at all by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. On the other hand, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to the assessee. Thus, the claim of the assessee was rejected. 6. Aggrieved by this, the assessee filed the present Tax Case Appeal. 7. On 17.06.2013, after hearing both sides, we passed the order accepting the case of the assessee that mere reference to 'would be spouse' or 'future child' by itself would not result in rejecting the claim of the assessee and assessing it as a Trust. In that....