Assessee-trust was set up by Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) in pursuance to SARFAESI Act and RBI Guidelines for purpose of liquidating/recovering NPAs acquired from banks.  Assessing Officer assessed assessee-trust treating it as an association of persons . Tribunal held that  all necessary ingredients for formation and existence of trust had been fulfilled, and RBI guidelines had duly been followed by assessee-trust and there was no material on record to suggest that there was a concerted effort by beneficiaries to earn income jointly  . Accordingly the Trust cannot be assessed as an Association of person. Assessing Officer held  that assessee-trust was not in nature of a revocable trust as its contributions could be revoked only with consent of contributors holding 75 per cent of units; and that, contributors had practically no control over income arising out of activities of fund accordingly  benefit of  sections 61 to 63  is not applicable . Tribunal held that  on a literal interpretation of statutory provisions of sections 61 to 63, it was nowhere stated that if transfer was explicitly revocable, provisions of sections 61 and 63 would not apply .Clause 5 of trust deed made it clear beyond any scope of doubt that contribution made by beneficiaries were revocable . Therefore, it was to be held that assessee-trust was a revocable trust, and thus, provisions of sections 61 to 63, would be applicable to it.  Tribunal also held that   merely because income of beneficiaries of assessee-trust flowed through books of account of assessee trust, it would not mean that it was income in hands of assessee trust. Tribunal also held that where names of beneficiaries of assessee-trust and their respective shares were known since inception and also proceeds had been distributed as per their respective shares, assessee-trust could not have been considered as an indeterminate trust.  Tribunal held that where reversal of impairment provision created by assessee in earlier years in respect of financial asset was merely a book entry without any corresponding amount payable by anybody or any possibility of receiving any benefit or money or money’s worth, write-back of impairment provision could not have been treated as income of assessee . (AY. 2013-14 )