PCIT v. Gracy Babu (2024) 298 Taxman 722 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Consideration received for relingiushment of trustee ship-Not capital in nature-Assessable as income-Reimbursements of certain sum for construction expenses-Not taxable in the hands of trustees-Not taxable in the hands of trustees-Donations were received by trusts-Not taxable in the hands of the Trustees. [S. 132, 260A]

Assessees were trustees of certain educational trust. Said trust was taken over by certain church and assessees relinquished trusteeship of said trust in favour of trustees of said church, and received consideration for same. The Asseessing Officer assessed the receipt as income. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. Tribunal delted the addition. On appeal the Court held that   since no power was conferred on trustees to relinquish their position as trustees en banc, therefore, en banc resignation/relinquishment by assessees, of their position as trustees of Trust, that too for a consideration, could not get imprimatur of this Court.Therefore, consideration received for such relinquishment would not qualify as a capital receipt and would be treated as individual income of assessees.Assessing Officer held that assessees had received reimbursements of certain sum for construction expenses and brought same to tax in their individual hands. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) held  that evidence obtained in course of search proceedings revealed that no construction work had actually been undertaken by said assessees or any of trustees, and hence, payments shown as contractual receipts were nothing but payments received for voluntary relinquishment of trusteeship. On appeal Tribunal held that there was construction activity carried out by those two assessees as evidenced by agreements and construction was reflected in balance sheet of assessees which was subjected to TDS and it could not be said that payments were not made towards construction of building which was for establishment of educational institution. On appeal the Court held that since Tribunal had relied on audited balance sheet of church and TDS payments made to Department in relation to said payments, the order of Tribunal is affirmed. Donations were received by certain trust in which assessees were trustees. AO taxed same in hands of assessees. CIT(A) affirmed the Order of the Assessing Officer. Tribunal deleted the addition. On appeal the Court held that  payments  were actually made to trust and not to trustees in their individual names and therefore, same could not be taxed in hands of assessees.  (AY. 2009-10 to 2011-12)