Income of a Revocable Trust is Taxable in the Hands of Contributors

ITO Vs ARCIL SBPS 024 I Trust (ITAT Mumbai)

ITAT observed that Ld.CIT(A) has dealt with the issue in detail and gave a clear finding that assessee is a revocable trust and not an AOP. In view of the provisions of section 61, 62 and 63 of the Act, it was held that income is not taxable in the hands of the assessee but the same is taxable in the hands of the contributors.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI

1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 33, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 30.01.2020 for the A.Y.2013-14.

2. Brief facts of the case are, the Return was filed by the assessee on 30.09.2013 declaring NIL income. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) were issued and served on the assessee. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee attended and filed relevant information as called for. The assessee is a trust, created by Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. (ARCIL) namely, ARCIL-SBPS 024-I Trust for the purpose of liquidating /recovering /realizing the Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) taken over by the ARCIL-SDPS024-I. The said Trust is registered under section 3 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by Reserve Bank of India. The trust has the following partners /members /shareholders.

3. The assessee has been created under the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India for fast recovery of Non-Performing Assets of the Banks/FIs and principally derived income from Securitization/Reconstruction of Asset. The claim of the assessee is, it is a pass through entity (Trust) and the income is not taxable in its hands. However, the Assessing Officer treated assessee as an Association of Persons (AOP) and taxed the income in the hands of the assessee. Against the above view, the assessee has made detailed submissions before the Assessing Officer and the summary is as under: –

“a) ARCIL is registered with RBI under section- 3 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 as a Securitisation Company and Reconstruction Company (SR/RC or ARC). SR/RCs are regulated by RBI. ARCIL declares the trusts and acts as a trustee of the trust in pursuance to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and RBI guidelines.

b) The trust accepts contributions from Security Receipt Holders (SR holders) for acquisition of financial assets.

c) The contributions are raised from Qualified Institutional Buyers (QIBs) as defined under SARFAESI Act for which trusts issue Security receipts (SRs) to QIBs.

d) SRs represent contribution of such QIBs in the trust and are in the nature of undivided right, title and interest in the Trust Fund (essentially financial assets held in trust).

e) It was claimed by the assessee that the contributions of the SR holders are revocable. Hence, income arising from revocable transfer shall be assessed in the hands of the contributors pursuant to section 6110 section 63 of the Act. The trust is a revocable trust and hence income is taxable in the hands of the transferor (i.e, SR holder).

f) The trust deed itself mentions that the SR holders are entitled to revoke the contribution made by them. Relevant para in the trust deed reproduced was Para 5.2

g) The assessee has been incorporated as a ‘Trust’ under SARFAESI Act, 2002. is a statutorily formed entity. An AOP is one in which two or more persons join a common purpose or common action to earn profit. So, the assessee is a Trust and not an AOP. In case of assessee, the SR holders do not have any relationship inter se but only with the Trust managed by the ARCIL.

h) If the trust is assessed as AOP, the income of the assessee is to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act.

4. The Assessing Officer rejected the submissions of the assessee and treated assessee as an AOP with the following view, as detailed below: –

“a) During the year under consideration, the assessee has received income/(Loss) of Rs.9,79,24,891/- after claiming a total expense of Rs.9,74,98,900/- on account of protection, preservation & insurance expenses and management fees from such investment activity upon redemption of the principal amount of Security Receipts(SR).

b) The assessee has stated that it is a private Trust created through a deed of declaration of trust dated 23.06.2008 by its trustee ARCIL. Subsequent to the creation of this private Trust, by a contribution agreement through offer document dated 23.06.2008, it has entered into activity of asset reconstruction and handling of NPAs. As per declaration of trust, there are two members (shareholders) in the Trust who has contributed the funds towards its capital. As per trust deed, ARCIL-SBPS024-I Trust has been appointed as a Settlor as 63 well as trustee also

c) The Indian Trusts Act. 1882 defines ‘Trust as an obligation annexed to the ownership of property and arising out of a confidence reposed in and accepted by the owner or declared and accepted by him, for the benefit of another or of another and the owner. The fundamental principle of a trust is that the Trustees of the Trust act in a fiduciary capacity for the benefit of the beneficiaries. In an ideal condition, Trusts are created by a settlor and the settlor ought to contribute its assets/property in the Trust called the trust property for the benefit of the persons, referred to as beneficiaries. Here, there is no trust property to which the trustee needs to manage. A trustee is appointed to manage the affairs of the trust.

d) In the case of a real trust, the three constituents i.e. Settlor, trustee and beneficiaries would never be the same persons. In the instant case, the settlor and the beneficiaries are the same and identical,

e) A Trust has three constituents i.e Settlor, Contributor and Beneficiaries and all the three constituents are independent and distinct whereas in the present case contributors are also the beneficiaries themselves.

f) This so-called Trust has been created for the sole motive to the benefit of the Settlor/contributor. Therefore, the plea made by the assessee that it is a trust is completely erroneous.

g) The assessee is only an AOP , as per section 2(31′) having 2 QlBs as members. Itis not a Trust Within meaning of section 61 to 63. The motive behind creation of this Trust is income —earning asset reconstruction activity. After creation, it entered into contribution agreements with QIBs for sole purpose of acquisition of NPAs, transferring those at a profit and earning profit/income out of the same. Hence, it is like coming together of the two or more persons by way of contribution of sufficient funds into an entity in order to invest in the specified entities with a sole intention to earn profits and the same can only be termed as AOP as per provisions of section 2(31). Hence, the assessee was held as AOP and income arising to the assessee by way of application of funds of investors was taxed in the hands of the assessee. The AO also held that the activities of the assessee are commercial transactions.

h) The AO, relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Indo Tech Electric Co. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and contended that the appellant has created a smokescreen in the name of trust in order to evade taxes.

i) The AO explained the meaning of an AOP by discussing several judicial pronouncements.

j) There is in fact de facto inter se arrangement between one contributor/ beneficiary and the other as each of them entered into contribution arrangement with the assessee keeping in view the presence and involvement of other contributor/beneficiary. Hence, it can be said that the beneficiaries have joined in a common purpose.

k) The revocable clause 5.2.1 relied on by the assessee clearly say that individual contributor cannot revoke their contributions. It can be done only when 75 % of the contributors consent together.

l) Even if the capital contribution is treated as revocable, the contributors have practically no control over the income arising out of the activities of the fund and thus sections 61 and 63 of the Act are not applicable to the appellant trust.

m) The claim of the assessee to the effect that the income has been taxed in the hand of the beneficiaries would not help. Income has to be taxed in the right hands, at the right rates of the taxation. The sums earned by the assessee on account of various investment/activities has been shown as its income, hence it is rightly and appropriately taxable in its own hands and the trust is legally bound to include the same in the computation of income.

n) The assessee has not established. that the income earned by the beneficiaries have been offered for taxation by each of the beneficiaries in their respective return of income at the correct rates.

o) Even if it is presumed that the assessee is a representative assessee not liable to be taxed in view of the provisions of section 161(1). However, in view of the provisions of section 161(1A), the same is liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee at maximum marginal rate.

p) The trust deed shows that the shares of the beneficiaries are not mentioned and hence section 164 will get attracted for the reason that the beneficiaries are not identifiable. Hence assessee would be assessed at maximum marginal rate.

q) Beneficiaries are not identified on the date of the trust deed.

R) The case of the assessee falls under CBDT circular No. 13/2014 related to Alternative Investment Funds which are subject to the SEBI Regulations which are are not venture capital funds and which are non-charitable Trust where investors same and beneficial interest are not explicitly known on the date of its creation have to be treated as falling within section 164(1),

s) The Substance of the transactions is that the assessee has carried on business from the contributions of various beneficiaries as per common motive to earn income and hence it is an AOP.

5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions. The Ld.CIT(A) summarized the main submissions of the assessee as under: –

“6. Aggrieved with the action of the AO, the assessee has filed the present appeal under consideration. During the course of appellate proceedings, extensive arguments have been made by the Ld. ARs and written submissions are filed on 27.01.2020. The main points of the appellant’s submission are as under:

a) The Bangalore ITAT in case of DCIT vs. India Advantage Fund —VII (50 com 350] has decided similar issue in favour of the assessee and the said decision was upheld by the Karnataka High Court.

b) The CIT(A)-33 in similar case [ Scheme Al of ARC IL CPS 002 XI Trust) vide his order dated 03.01.2018 has also decided the matter in favour of the appellant.

c) The CIT(A)-33 in case of another trust (AROIL AARF I-i Trust) vide order dated 17.09.2019 and in case of ARCIL Retail Portfolio Loan 017 A Trust vide order dated 28.12.2018 has accepted that the trusts are recoverable covered under section 61 to 63.

d) There is no bar whatsoever that the contributors cannot be beneficiary. Section 9 and section 7 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 was produced. A person who is competent to contract can be a Settlor and a person who is capable of holding property can be a beneficiary. If a single person fulfills both the conditions, he can be both settlor and beneficiary. The appellant reproduced relevant paragraphs of the decision by the Bangalore ITAT in case of DCIT VS. India Advantage Fund —VII [50 com 350] in support of its view.

e) Section 2 and section 7 of SARFAESI Act and RBI guidelines on Securitization was filed. It was stated that when aforesaid Act and guideline permit creation of trust, it cannot be said as smokescreen

f) Entire arrangement of securitization is under the observation of the Central Govt.

g) The validity of the trust formed pursuant to RBI guidelines on Standard assets has also been upheld by ITAT, Mumbai in case of Indian Corporation Loan securitization Trust -2006 series 14 [ ITA NO. 3986/Mum/2013]

h) The SR holders are entitled to revoke contribution made by them. Relevant clauses [5.1 & 5.2] were reproduced.

i) Section 61 to 63 does not say that right to revoke should be without any conditions. In support of this view, relevant para of decision of the ITAT, Mumbai in case of Indian Corporate Loan Securitization Trust-2008 series 14 [ITA NO. 3986/Mum/2013] was reproduced. The ITAT while reaching the above conclusion relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in case of Behramji Sorabji Lal kaka vs. CIT 16 ITR 301 wherein it was hold that even if the transfer is conditionally revocable, the income still needs to be taxed in the hands of the transferor as long as transfer is revocable, The ITAT, Mumbai had also drawn support from the decision of Bangalore Bench of ITAT in case of India Advantage Fund VII whose relevant paras were reproduced.

j) The appellant also relied on the decision of Mumbai ITAT in case of ITO vs. DHFL Venture Capital Fund f, (2017) (82 com 176)] where revocation clause was similarly worded. Relevant para of the aforesaid decision was reproduced.

k) The appellant trust cannot be called an AOP as there is no inter se agreement between

L) The names of the beneficiaries and their shares were known and have remained unchanged. Beneficiaries and each of them enter into separate contribution agreement with the assessee.

m) Circular 13/2014 of CBDT applies to Alternative Investment Funds only.

n) Relying on Karnataka High Court in case of India Advantage Fund-VIP, it was submitted that once the beneficiaries were identifiable and their shares is known, section 164 of the Act cannot be applied.

o) Appellant Trust was set up pursuant to section 7 of SARFAESI Act and RBI guidelines issued to SC/RCs. The trust was not created as a smokescreen to evade tax.

p) Both the beneficiaries ARC IL and Oriental Bank of Commerce are assessed as company and pay tax @ 30%.

6. After considering detailed submissions filed by the assessee, Ld.CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee with following observations:-

“7. I have carefully considered the aforesaid arguments of the Ld. AR and the facts of the assessment order. The CIT(A)-33 passed the appellate order dated 03.01.2018 in case of Scheme Al of ARCIL CPS 002 XI Trust for AY 2013- 14 [Appeal no. CIT(A)-33/Rg.21/155/2016-17] in favour of the assessee. Facts of the said case Is identical to the present case. Detailed reasons have been given by the CIT(A) against each findings of the AO. The CIT(A)-33 in case of another trust (ARCIL AARF 1-1 Trust) vide order dated 17,09.2019 and in case of ARCIL Retail Portfolio Loan 017 A Trust vide order dated 28.12.2018 has accepted that the trusts are recoverable covered under section 61 to 63. Therefore, considering the aforesaid decisions and other decisions of the Mumbai and Bangalore ITAT cited by the appellant, my findings are as under:

a) I have perused Section 9 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 which defines beneficiary saying that every person capable of holding property may be a beneficiary. I have perused Section 7 of the Indian Trust Act which states that a trust may be created by every person competent to contract. From the above, it is clear that there is no prohibition in the Trust Act on the; settlor becoming beneficiary. Hence, the AO is wrong in holding that the appellant trust is not a valid trust since contributors and beneficiaries are the same.

b) The Appellant Trust has been set up under SARFAESI Act following guidelines of RBI. Therefore, its validity is beyond doubt.

c) In this regard, I find that the reliance of the appellant on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and Bangalore ITAT in case of DCIT vs India Advantage Fund – VII (supra) is in order.

d) I agree with the contention of the appellant that section 61 to 63 does not in any manner imply that the right of revocation should be without any conditions. In the instant case, in terms of Clause 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of the trust deed, the contribution made by the SR holders is “revocable” as the power of re-assumption or re-transfer of the assets or income is retained by the SR holders.

e) The Ld. AR has relied upon Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Behramji Sorabji Lalkaka v CIT 16 ITR 301 where Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that even if the transfer is Conditionally revocable the income still needs to be taxed in the hands of the transferor as long as transfer is revocable. She has also relied upon Bangalore ITAT decision in DCIT vs India Adventage Fund VII (supra) and Mumbai ITAT in ITO Vs DHFL Venture Capital Fund [(2017) (82 com 176). According to the Ld. AR, the ‘Revocation of Contribution Clause of the trust in the later case law is similarly worded as in the case of appellant trust, wherein Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT had held that the assessee trust was 3 private revocable trust and section 61 and section 33 of the Act are applicable.

f) The relevant revocation clauses are as under

“5.2 Revocation of Contributions

1. 1. 1. The Security Receipt Holders shell be entitled to revoke the Contributions made by them at any time during the term of this Deed, in accordance with the terms and conditions contained therein for any reason, including but not limited to circumstances resulting from any adverse tax consequences (for either the Trust or the Security Receipts Holders) or any direction of any Statutory Authority, provided that no such revocation shall take effect unless the consent of the Security Holders holding Security Receipts representing not less than 75% of the total face value of the then outstanding Security receipts, issued pursuant to this Deed has been obtained, in this behalf, provided that a notice of not less Than 60 days of the intention to revoke the contribution is given to the Trustee.

1.1.1 In the event that the Trustee, at any time during the term of this Deed, faces any adverse tax consequence or upon any direction of any Statutory Authority, the Trustee shall have the right to ca// upon the Security Receipt Holders to revoke the,, Contributions and thereupon the Security Receipt Holders shall be obliged to revoke their Contribution.

1.1.1. In the event that the Contributions are revoked in terms of this Section 5.2, the Trust Fund shall automatically stand transferred and shall automatically and without any further act, deed or writing operate as an assignment vesting the Trust Fund jointly in favour of each of the Security Receipt Holders (in proportion to their Contributions) or to any person designated by the Security Receipt Holders in this behalf provided that the Trustee has received payment of all amounts due or accrued to the Trustee in full, in accordance with the terms of the Deed. Upon such transfer all the provisions of the relevant Financing Documents and the Assignment Agreements shall apply mutatis mutandis to the Security Receipt Holders or their designee, and the Security Receipt Holders or their designee shall be entitled to all rights and remedies of the Trustee and shall be obliged to perform all its duties and obligations under the relevant Financing Documents and the assignment Documents and the assignment Agreements. as if the Security Receipt Holders or their designee were party to the Financing Documents and the Assignment Agreements as the date thereof.

g) The above clauses of the trust deed make it clear that the contribution made by the SR holders is “revocable” and hence the income needs to be taxed in the hands of the SR holders as per the provisions of section 61 to 63 of the LT. Act. Moreover, I find that the decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Indian Corporate Loan and Securitisation Trust- 2008 Series 14 in ITA no. ITA Nos. 3986 & 4343/Mum/2013 dated 17.02.2017 is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Even the decision of DCIT vs India Advantage Fund VII (supra) will be applicable to the facts of the appellant case.

h) The appellant trust cannot be called an AOP since there is no agreement amongst beneficiaries inter se, therefore, it cannot be said that two or more beneficiaries joined for a common purpose or common action. The beneficiaries are mere recipients of the income earned by the trust. The beneficiaries make investment based on the Offer Document and on the basis of the investment made in the trust, they are allotted the Security Receipts which represents the undivided and proportionate interest of the investors in the corpus of the trust. It is found that the reliance of Ld. AR uponthe decisions of the Mumbai ITAT in the case of Indian Corporate Loan Securitization Trust — 2008 Series 14 Vs ITO (supra) and Bangalore ITAT in the case of DCIT Vs India Advantage Fund — VII (supra) is proper wherein an arrangement similar to that of the appellant trust was not considered as AOP.

i) The AO has not brought on record any material which remotely suggest that a concerted effort has been made by the beneficiaries to earn income jointly.

j) Merely because the realization flows through the appellant, it does not mean that It is income in the hands of the appellant. The money was always intended to be passed on to the SR holders and therefore, it can be said that only the SR holders had a right on the realized money.

k) It is also observed that the names of beneficiaries of the appellant trust and their shares are known and have remained unchanged throughout. The details of the same are as under:

Hence, the appellant trust cannot be considered as indeterminate trust once the names of beneficiaries of the appellant trust and their shares are known at the inception and proceeds are distributed as per their shares. This is not a case where discretion is given to the trustee to decide the allocation of the income every year or a right is given to the beneficiary to exercise the option to receive the income or not each year. Only in the later situation, the trust will be regarded as discretionary trust. In the instant case, in my considered opinion, there is no doubt that the appellant trust is a determinate trust i.e., non-discretionary trust.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and findings, the appellant is held as revocable Trust and not an AOP and in view of provisions o f Section 61 to 63 of the Income Tax Act, it is held that the income is not taxable in the hands of the appellant but the same is taxable in the hands of the contributors. The grounds are allowed.

8. Ground No.2 of the appellant is on account of non-grant of TDS The said ground is reproduced as under The learned AO has erred in not granting the credit of TDS claimed in the Return of income.”

8.1 In this regard, the AO is directed to allow TDS credit after verification as per law.

9. In result, appeal of the appellant for A.Y.2013-14 is allowed. ”

7. Aggrieved revenue is in appeal before us raising following grounds in its appeal: –

“1. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT (A) erred in changing the status of assessee as “Trust” and not an “AOP” and allowing expense of Rs. 9,84,49,330/-which was made by the assessee for protection, preservation, insurance expenses and management fees from such investment activity upon redemption of the principal amount of Security Receipts (SR)”

2. “Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT (A) erred in considering that the assessee is a trust which does not fall within the meaning of section 61 to 63 of the I.T.Act, 1961” .

3. “Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering that the assessee trust set up and functioning in ‘ accordance with the mechanism of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and under guidance of RBI whereas it is clear that trust is a smoke screen and colourable devise to evade taxes”

4. “Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering that the assessee has carried on business from the contribution of various beneficiaries as per common motive to earn: income and hence it is an AOP”.

5. The appellant prays that the Order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be’reversed and that of Assessing Officer be restored.

6. The appellant craves to leave amend of alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary. ”

8. At the time of hearing, Ld. DR brought to our notice that this appeal filed by the Revenue is delayed due to COVID-19 Pandemic and the appeal should have been filed by the revenue by 30.03.2020 whereas it is filed on 23.03.2021. He prayed that delay may be condoned. Considered the submissions and due to reasonable cause we condone the delay and allow the appeal for adjudication.

9. Ld. DR submitted that the assessee is only a pass thru entity under “SARFAESI Act” and submitted that trust settlers and beneficiaries are same persons. He submitted that it is the modus operandi of the assessee to generate profit. It is a colorable devise to evade tax. He supported the finding of the Assessing Officer that assessee is an AOP and should be taxed under the term defined for “person” u/s. 2(31) of the Act. He relied on the case of CIT v. Indira Balkrishna (1960) 39 ITR 546 (SC) and it was held that when the conglomerate of persons could be held to be an AOP for the purpose of section 3 of 1922 Act. Further, he submitted that the assessee and beneficiaries have joined in a common purpose or common action, the object which was to produce income, profit and gains and therefore constituted an AOP. Further, he supported the findings of the Assessing Officer that the nature of the trust is non revocable, in this regard he brought to our notice clause 5.2.1 of the trust deed which is reproduced in Page No. 14 of the Assessment Order and submitted that the assessee is a taxable AOP and not a trust as pleaded by the assessee.

Therefore, this issue is fall u/s. 61, 62 and 63 of the Act does not have any merit. He also supported the finding of the Assessing Officer that the trust is indeterminate nature and section 164 is applicable in the case of the assessee. In conclusion, he brought to our notice the summary of arguments made by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order and he heavily supported the finding of the Assessing Officer. He brought to our notice Page No. 10 of the Ld.CIT(A) order and vehemently argued that Ld.CIT(A) has come to wrong conclusion and therefore he submitted that First Appellate Order maybe set aside.

10. On the other hand, Ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice Page No. 7 of the Ld.CIT(A) order and supported the finding of the Ld.CIT(A). Further, he brought to our notice decision of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of ITO v. M/s. Scheme A1 of ARCIL CPS 002 XI Trust in ITA.No. 2293/Mum/2018 dated 10.09.2020. Further, he brought to our notice facts of M/s. Scheme A1 of ARCIL CPS 002 XI Trust (supra) case and the assessee’s case, and submitted that the purpose to establish the Trust are exactly same, no change in the trust deed clauses as well. Accordingly, he relied on the finding of the Ld.CIT(A).

11. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observed that Ld.CIT(A) has dealt with the issue in detail and gave a clear finding that assessee is a revocable trust and not an AOP. In view of the provisions of section 61, 62 and 63 of the Act, it was held that income is not taxable in the hands of the assessee but the same is taxable in the hands of the contributors. We observed that the facts in the present appeal are exactly similar to the facts in the case of ITO v. M/s. Scheme A1 of ARCIL CPS 002 XI Trust (supra), therefore we are inclined to follow the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, in which it was held as under:

“We have deliberated at length on the issue under consideration, and find, that a perusal of the trust deed and the minutes of the meeting dated 27.12.2007, therein clearly makes a mention of the names of the beneficiaries of the assessee trust, and also, their shares which had remained unchanged throughout, as under:

As the names of the beneficiaries of the assessee trust and their respective shares are known since inception and also the proceeds have been distributed as per their respective shares, therefore, we concur with the view taken by the CIT(A) that the assessee trust could not be considered as an indeterminate trust. In fact, we are in agreement with the view taken by the CIT(A) that as neither any discretion have been given to the trustee to decide the allocation of the income every year, nor any right is given to the beneficiary to exercise an option to receive the income or not each year, therefore, it cannot be held that the share of the beneficiaries were indeterminate. In our considered view, as the names of the beneficiaries of the assessee trust and their shares were known since inception i.e at the time of the formation of the trust as is evident from the minutes of the meeting dated 27.12.2007, therefore, it can safely be concluded that the assessee trust is a determinate trust i.e a non-discretionary trust. Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(A) who had rightly concluded that the assessee is a determinate trust, we uphold the same. ”

12. Respectfully following the above said decision, we are in agreement with the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) and we do not find any infirmity to interfere with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds filed by the revenue are dismissed.

13. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11.03.2022.