JUDGMENT
Thanikkachalam, J.
1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following two common questions for the asst. yr. 1979-80 in the case of the two assessees for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 :
“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under s. 80L even while agreeing with the view taken by the Department that the income computed in the assessee’s case will be liable to tax under s. 164(1) treating such income as the total income of an ‘AOP’ ?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case having regard to the entire scheme of the IT Act, the Tribunal was justified in adopting dual status, viz., as an ‘individual’ for the purpose of determination of the total income and as an AOP for the purpose of levy of tax under s. 164(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ?”
2. The assessees are trusts assessed in the status of “AOP” by the ITO. The assessees are private trusts created by deeds of settlement and managed by a single trustee. The trusts were intended to provide funds to be applied to certain beneficiaries mentioned in the trust deeds. In the matter of trust funds to be applied for the benefit of beneficiaries a discretion has been vested in the trustee as to the extent and to the purpose for which such funds were to be spent in respect of each one of the beneficiaries. On the ground that the shares of the beneficiaries are not ascertainable, the ITO assessed the assessees in the status of “AOP”.
3. The ITO refused to allow the claim for relief under s. 80L because according to the ITO the assessees are AOP and would not be entitled to relief under s. 80L. On appeal, the AAC took the status of the assessees as “individual” and held that the relief due under s. 80L is permissible. On further appeal at the instance of the Department, the Tribunal, following its earlier orders in the cases of the very same group of trusts, held that the assessees would be entitled to relief under s. 80L.
4. A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in the case of CIT vs. Venu Suresh Sanjay Trust (1996) 221 ITR 649 (Mad), where it was held that the assessee-trust is entitled to benefit under s. 80L of the Act. In view of the abovesaid decision of this Court, we answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.