JUDGMENT
S.B. Majumdar, J.
1. The question referred for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act is as under :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the share of profit in the firms of M/s. Amrit Chemicals & M/s. Star Radio and Electric Co. added by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1971-72 ?”
2. The relevant assessment year is 1971-72. The contention of the assessee is that the assessee had her share in M/s. Amrit Chemicals and M/s. Star Radio and Electric Co. The share in M/s. Amrit Chemicals was claimed to have been gifted by her to a trust named Panna Pratiksha Mamta Trust by a declaration dated December 16, 1964, and the share from M/s. Star Radio and Electric Co. was claimed to have been gifted by her to the said trust by a declaration dated May 4, 1967. For the assessment year in question, namely, 1971-72, the Income-tax Officer sought to include the share income of the assessee in these two firms in her income. That was taken in appeal by the assessee in appeal wherein she succeeded. The Revenue carried the matter in second appeal to the Tribunal and failed and that is how the question arising out of the judgment and appeal has been got referred by the Tribunal for our opinion.
3. Now, in the assessee’s own case, for the earlier assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, on the construction of the very same declarations, this court has come to the conclusion in the case of CIT v. Nandiniben Narottamdas [1983] 140 ITR 16, that, on a fair and comprehensive reasoning of the declarations in all their material parts, it was clear that what was gifted was not merely the shares of profits from the firms. Even if there was room for doubt with regard to the true meaning of the declaration, the same stood resolved by the debit of the loss from one of the firms in 1968 to the account of the trust. The assessee had made a gift of her shares in the two firms in favour of the beneficiaries of the trust. The asset giving rise to income was transferred to the beneficiaries of the trust within the meaning of section 60. Hence, the share income from the two firms stood diverted to the trust by overriding title even before it reached the assessee. Such income could not be assessed in her hands.
4. On the very same reasoning, on absolutely identical facts, the question referred to us for our opinion has to be answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference stands disposed of. No costs.