Holding

The Reserve Fund and the Family Trust Expenses Account constitute distinct trusts and their incomes must be assessed separately; they cannot be aggregated in a single assessment.

Summary

The Nizam of Hyderabad created a family trust in 1950, dividing the corpus into a Reserve Fund and a Family Trust Expenses Account, each with distinct purposes. The income of these two funds was assessed separately for 1960‑61 and 1961‑62, but the Income‑Tax Officer later reopened the assessments under section 147 of the Income‑Tax Act, aggregating the incomes and reassessing the trustees. The Revenue appealed, arguing that the two incomes should be combined for a single assessment. The Supreme Court held that the deed created two separate trusts, that a settlor may establish multiple trusts by a single document, and therefore the incomes must be assessed separately. Consequently, the revenue’s appeal was dismissed and the earlier separate assessments stood.

Issues considered

Whether the incomes arising from the Reserve Fund and the Family Trust Expenses Account of the Nizam's Family Trust can be aggregated in a single assessment for each assessment year 1960‑61 to 1965‑66.
Whether, if aggregation were permissible, the assessments made under section 148 of the Income‑Tax Act for 1960‑61 and 1961‑62 were valid.

Legislation cited

Income Tax Act, 1922s. 147
Income Tax Act, 1961s. 147, s. 148

Subjects

Trust lawIncome tax assessmentSection 147Section 148Aggregation of incomeSeparate trustsNizam's family trustSettlor's intention

Judgment

A
~·
C.I.T., A_NDHRA PRADESH
v.
TRUSTEES OF H.E.H., THE NIZAM'S FAMILY TRUST
B
'
SEPTEMBER 30, 1986

"f· [R.S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.]

Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, s. 147-Nizam's Famiiy Trust

--~! Deed-Income arising .from Res;rve Fund and Expenses Account-
Whether can be aggregated in one single assessment-Sett/or-Whether
c
has a right to create separate and distinct trusts by a single document.

By a Deed of Tru,st dated May 10, 1950, the Nizam of Hyderabad
~
created a Family Trust. A corpus of nine crores in Government
securities was transferred lo the trustees under that Deed, which was D
notionally divided into 175 equal units, S units to cor.stitute a fund
called the 'Reserve Fund', 3ll:z units to constitute the 'Family Trust
·Expenses Account' and the remaining 1661h units were allotted to the
relatives mentioned in the Schedule in the manner provided therein.
The Trust Deed provided: (I) that the income or corpus of the Reserve
A Fund shall he applied for any special, unusual, unforeseen or emer- E
gency expenses for the benefit of the inembers of the settlor's family ·
specified in. the Schedule; (2) that if there was a deficit in the Family
Trust Expenses Account, a definite proportion of the income or corpus
' of the Reserve Fund had to be transferred to the Family Trust Expenses
Account; (3) that the net income of the Family Trust Expenses Account
1 shall be applied to the charges for the collection of the income of the
Trust Fund and the remuneration of the trustees and of the members of
F

...,,, the (:ommittee of Management and to other costs, charges, expenses
and outgoings relating to the members, (4) that on the death of any of
the settlor's, relatives, a proportionate share of the corpus, of the
Reserve Fund must be added to the unit or units of the corpus of the
Trust Fund allocated to such member, and the amounts so amalgama- G
ted are to be applied in accordance with the terms of the trust deed; and
(SJ that the corpus of the Family Trust Expenses Account has to be
ultimately handed over to the Settlor's successor to the dignity ofNizam
.
'( and falling him to his .eldest male descendant in the direct male line of
succession in accordance with the rule of primogeniture.
H
973
974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986) 3 S.C.R.

A The income of the two Funds were separately assessed for the ·~
assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. Subsequently, the Income-tax
Officer, being of opinion that there was only one settlement under the
Trust Deed, reopened the assessments for the assessment years 1960-61
and 1961-62 under clause(a) of s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and
B assessed the trustees for each of the assessment years on the combined
income of the Reserve Fund and the Family Trust Expenses Account.
Following the same line, separate original assessments for the assess-
ment years 1962-63 to 1965-66 were also made. On appeal by the asses-
see,'the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cancelled the assessments for
all the years. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the High Court ~
confirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
c
In the .appeals by the Revenue to this Court, on the question
whether the incomes arising from the Reserve Fund and the Expenses
Account of the Nizam's Family Trust Deed can be aggregated in a single :r
assessment for each of the assessment years 1960-61 to 1965-66.
D
HELD: 1. The High Court was right that the Settlor intended to
.create separate Trusts in respect of the Reserve Fund and the Family
Trust Expenses Account, and that the respective incomes arising from
the corpus of those Trusts cannot be aggregated in one single assess-
ment but most be assessed separately. [979A-B)
E
"
2. It is open to a Settlor to constitute two or m\)re distinct trusts
by a single document. [978C]
;
In the instant case, there is no doubt that separate funds were
created, even .though the division of the original Trlist Fund may have
been notional. The objects for which the tl"nstees held the Reserve Fund \..
F
and the Family Trust Expenses Account are clearly demarcated and
there is no overlapping or duplication. There is also no intermingling of >
the Funds. The transfer of a portion from one to the other cannot lead
to a confusion in the separate identity of the two Trusts. [978B-E]

3. Although the corpus of the Trust Fund vested in the same
G
trustees, the trustees nonetheless held distinct and severable portions of
the corpus of the Trost Fund under those separate trusts. That this
construction of the document accords with the intention of the Settlor is 'r'
borne out by the provisions of sub-clause (4) of clause 3 of the Trust
Deed, which specifically provides that on the death of the Settlor the
H corpus of the Trust Fund was to be divided or to be created as notionally
C.l.Lv. TRUSTESSOFH.E.H. [PATHAK,J.] 975

divided into the 175 equal units mentioned therein for beinii: allncated to 'A
the Settlor's relatives specified in the Schedule, [977G-H; 978A-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
1856-61of1974 etc.
B
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.1.1974 of the Andhra
'I-· Pradesh High Court in Case Referred No. 2 of 1972.

V.S. Desai, Ms. A. Subhashini and B.B. Ahuja for the
- -~ Appellant.
)

Y. Ratnakar and D .N. Misra for the Respondent. c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by-

PATHAK, J. These appeals have been preferred by the
Revenue against the common judgment of the High Court of Andhra D
Pradesh answering the following questions in favour of the assessee:

"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the incomes arising from the Reserve Fund and the
Expenses Account of the Nizam's Family Trust Deed dated
10.5.1950 can be aggregated in a single assessment for each E
of the assessment years 1960-61to1965-66?

(2) If the answer to the above question is in the affirma-.
tive, whether the assessments made under section 148 of
the Act for the assessment years 1960-61and1961-62 were
legal and valid?" F
By a Deed of Trust dated May 10, 1950 the Nizam of Hyderabad
created a Family Trust. A corpus of nine crores in Government
securities was transferred to the trustees under that Deed.The corpus
was notionally divided into 175 equal units. Five units were to consti".
lute a fund called the 'Reserve FUJ!d', and 3V2 units were to constitute G
the 'Family Trust Expenses Account". The remaining 166 1/2 units were
allotted to the relatives mentioned in the Schedule in the manner
"provided therein, the number of units allocated to each individual
relative being specified there.

Two clauses of the Trust Deed hold the centre.of the stage in H
976 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 3 S.C.R.

A these appeals. Clause 6 creates a Reserve Fund comprising five equal
units of the corpus of the Trust Fund. The trustees hold the Reserve
Fund upon trust to apply the income or corpus thereof for any special,
unusnal, unforeseen or emergency expenses for the benefit of the
members of the S~ttlor's family specified in the Schedule. Addition-
B ally, if the income of the Family Trust Expenses Account is insufficient
to meet the charges of collection of the income of the Trust Fund and
the remuneration of the trustees and of the Committee of Manage-
ment and the other costs, charged, expenses and ontgoings relating to
the Trust, the trustees are enjoined to make good such deficit out of
the income or corpus of the Reserve Fund, and for that purpose they
may transfer to the Family Trust Expenses Account such sums as may -.("-
c be required. It is further provided that on the death of any of the '
Settlor's relatives specified in the Schedule the trustees must set apart
out of the Reserve Fund a certain portion calculated in accordance
with the directions contained in the clause and to add such portion to
the units of the corpus of the Trust Fund allocated to the member
specified in the Schedule and to amalgamate the same, and to hold it
D
upon the same trusts 'as those hereinafter declared and contained of
and concerning the unit or units of the corpus of the Trust Fund
allocated to such relative of the settlor as aforesaid.'

Clause 7 directs the trustees to hold 31/2 equal units of the corpus
of the Trust Fund allocated to the Family Trust Expenses Account, ·
E
and to apply the net income of that Fund to the charges for the collec-
tion of the income of the Trust Fund and the remuneration of the
trustees and of the members of the Committee of Management and to
other costs, charges, expenses and ouigoings relating to the Trust.
There is a further provision. After all the other Trusts constituted
under the Deed have been fully administered and carried out and the
F
corpuses of all such units have been handed over and transferred to the
ultimate respective beneficiaries the trustees are enjoined to transfer
and hand over the 31/i units comprising the Family Trust Expenses
Account to the Settlor's successor who may be described as the Nizam
of by any other title or rank or designation, and failing such person, to
the eldest male descendant in the direct male line of succession of the
G
Settlor according to the rule of primogeniture.

For the assessment year 1959-60 and the assessment years prior y
thereto the incomes accruing to the Reserve Fund and the Family
Trust Expenses Account were aggregated in a single assessment made
H on the trustees of the Nizam's Family Trust. But thereafter the asses-
C.l.T. v. TRUSTESSOFH.E.H. [PATHAK,J.] 977

see's appeals having been allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commis- A
sioner of Income-tax against the assessments for the years 1955-56 to
1959-60, the incomes of the two Funds were separately assessed for the
assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, the assessee being described in
the one case as the trustees of the Nizam's Family Trust Reserve Fund,
and in the other as the trustees of the Nizam's Family Trust Expenses
B
Account. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer being of opinion that ·
there was only one settlement under the Trust Deed, reopened the
assessments for the-assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 under clause
(a) of s. 147 of lhe Income Tax Act, 1961 in order to assess the trustees
on the combined income of the Reserve Fund .and the Family Trust
Expenses Account. Following the same line, he made separate original
assessments for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1965-66. On appeal by c
the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner relied on an order
of the Appellate Tribunal in the Wealth Tax Appeals pertaining to t:1e
same trust arrangements and cancelled the assessments for all the
years. The Revenue appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
but the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was up-
D
held by the Appellate Tribunal and the appeals were dismissed. Upon
that, the Revenue obtained a reference to the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh on the two questjons of law set forth earlier for the assessment
years 1960-61 to 1965-66. By its judgment dated January 16, 1974 the
High Court answered both the questions in the negative. And hence
these appeals.
E
For the subsequent assessment years 1967-68 to 1970-71 the High
Court adopted the same view iii regard to the first question. The '
second question did not arise for those assessment years. Special
Leave Petition Nos. 4171 to 4174 of 1978 have been filed against the
judgment of the High Court in those cases. We grant special leave, and
F
the consequent appeals are also being disposed of by this judgment.

The primary question in these appeals is whether the incomes .
arising from the Reserve Fund and the Family Trust Expenses
Account of the Nizam's Family Trust can be assessed separately or
must be aggi:egated in a single assessment.
G
It seems to us clear that by the Deed·ofTrust dated May 10, 1950
the Nizam created a nmnber of separate and distinct Trusts. They were
created for specific and distinct purposes;and although the corpus of
the Trust Fund vested in the same trustees, the trustees nonetheless
held distinct and severable portions of the corpus of -the Trust ·Fund H
978 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 3 S.C.R.

A under those separate trusts. That this construction of the document
accords with the intention of the Settlor is home out by the provisions
of sub-clause (4) of clause 3 of the Trust Deed, which specifically
provides that on the death of the Settlor the corpus of the Trust Fund
was to be divided or to be treated as notionally divided into the 175
equal units mentioned therein for being allocated to the Settlor's rela-
B
tives specified in the Schedule, 1661/i units being apportioned between
the relatives in the proportion set out, five equal units to constitute the
Reserve Fund and the last 31/i equal units to constitute the Family
Trust Expenses Account. There is no doubt that separate funds were
thus created, even though the division" of the original Trust Fund may
have been notional. There is also no denying that it is open to a Settlor
c to constitute two or more distinct trusts by ·a single document. See
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Manila! Dhanji, [1962] 44
I. T.R. 876, 886. The entire position becomes absolutely clear if regard
is had to clause 10 of the Trust Deed. which permits the trustees to have
separate Trust Deeds made and executed in respect of the different
funds carved out of the 175 equal units of the corpus of the Trust Fund.
D
It is also apparent that the objects for which the trustees held the
Reserve Fund and the Family Trust Expenses Account are clearly
demarcated and there is no overlapping or duplication. There is also
no intermingling of the Funds. It is true that if there is a deficit in the
Family Trust Expenses Account, a definite portion of the income or
E corpus of the Reserve Fund has to be transferred to the Family Trust
Expenses Account. But the two Funds, remain distinct from each
other at all time~, The transfer of a portion from one to the other
cannot lead to a confusion in the separate identity of the two Trusts.

A further indication evidencing the creation of two distinct
F Trusts is the completely different manner of disposal of the corpus of
the two Funds. As regards the Reserve Fund we have seen that on the
death of any of the Settlor's relatives a proportionate .share of the
corpus of the Reserve Fund must be added to the unit or units of the
corpus of the Trust Fund allocated to such members, and the amounts
so amalgamated are to be applied in accordance with the terms of the
G Trust Deed mentioned earlier. In the case of the Family Trust Ex-
penses Account, the corpus of that Fund has to be ultimately handed.
over to the Settlor' s successor to the dignity of Nizam and failillg him
to his eldest male descendant in the direct male line of succession in
accordance with the rule of primogeniture.
H
We agree with the High Court that the Settlor intended to create
C.I.T. v. TRUSTESSOFH.E.H. (PATHAK,J.] 979

separate Trusts in respect of the Reserve Fund and the Family Trust A
Expenses Account, and that the respective incomes arising from the
corpus of those Trusts cannot be aggregated_ in one single assessment
but must be assessed separately. The first question in these Appeals is
therefore ariswered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and
against the Revenue.
B
Inasmuch as the answer to the first question is in the negative,
· ..,.. the second question does not arise and we need not consider that
question in these Appeals.

The Appeals are disl)lissed with costs.
c
M.L.A. Appeals dismissed.