Ita/191/2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S. India Advantage Fund-Vii

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BBNGALURU DATED THIS THE I DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ANT) THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A N VENUGOPALA GOWDA. ITA NO.191/2015 C/W ITA NOS.446/2015, 4477/2015, 448/2015, 449/2015& 450/2015 IN ITA NO.191/2015:BETWEEN: 1.THR COMMISSIONBR OF INCOMBE-TAXC.R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD,BRNGALURU|C.R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD,BRNGALURU| 2.THE DBPUTY COMMISSIONBR OF INCOMBE-TAXCIRCLE-9(1)CIRCLE-9(1) JEEVAN SAMPIGE, 3RD FLOOR, 1/1, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESWARAM,| BRNGALURU - 560003. | _. APPBLLANTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND: M/s. INDIA ADVANTAGE FUND-VIL)10 FLOOR, PRESTIGE OBELISKNO.3, KASTURBA ROAD,BENGALURU - 560001.)PAN: AAATI5597C_ RESPONDENT (BY SRIL.JEHANGIR MISTRI, SR. COUNSEL FORSMT.VANI H, ADVOCATE)|SMT.VANI H, ADVOCATE)| THIS TTA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF|THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER|DATED:17/10/2014.PASSED.IN.ITANO.178/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR)2008-2009 AND ETC., IN ITA NO.446/2015: BETWEEN: 1.THE COMMISSIONBR OF INCOME -TAXC.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD,BRNGALURU|C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD,BRNGALURU| 2.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX.CIRCLE -9 (1),CIRCLE -9 (1), JEEVAN SAMPIGE, 3RD FLOOR, 1/1, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESWARAM,|BRHNGALURU-560 O03 . APPBLLANTS (BY SRI.K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S ICICI EMERGING SECTORS FUND.1OTH FLOOR, PRESTIGE OBELISK,NO.3, KASTURBA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 OO1,PAN: AAATI 3458ARBSPONDENT (BY SRIL.JEHANGIR MISTRI, SR. COUNSEL FORSMT.VANI H, ADVOCATE)|THIS [TA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 2Q60-A OFTHE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER|DATED:13/02/2015.PASSBHBIN|ITANO.177/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR)2008-2009 AND ETC., IN ITA NO.447/2015: BETWEEN: 1.|THR COMMISSIONBR OF INCOMBE-TAXC.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD,BRNGALURU|C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD,BRNGALURU| |THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX.CIRCLE -9 (1),JEEVAN SAMPIGE,3RD FLOOR, 1/1, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESWARAM,|BRHNGALURU-560 O03 ... APPBLLANTSCIRCLE -9 (1),JEEVAN SAMPIGE,3RD FLOOR, 1/1, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESWARAM,|BRHNGALURU-560 O03 ... APPBLLANTS (BY SRI.K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S ICICI EMERGING SECTORS FUND.1OTH FLOOR, PRESTIGE OBELISK,NO.3, KASTURBA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 OO1,PAN: AAATI 3458A~ RBSPONDENT. (BY SRIL.JEHANGIR MISTRI, SR. COUNSEL FORSMT.VANI H, ADVOCATE)| THIS [TA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 2Q60-A OFTHE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER|DATED:13/02/2015.PASSBHBIN|ITANO.348/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR)2008-2009 AND ETC., IN ITA NO.448/2015: BETWEEN: 1.|THE COMMISSIONBR OF INCOME -TAXC.R. BUILDING,QUEENS ROAD,BRNGALURU| D |THR DEPUTY COMMISSIONBR OF INCOMBE-TAXCIRCLE -9 (1),JEEVAN SAMPIGE,3RD FLOOR, 1/1, SAMPIGE ROAD,MALLESWARAM,BRHNGALURU-560 O03 . APPBLLANTS (BY SRI.K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S ICICI EMERGING SECTORS FUND.1OTH FLOOR, PRESTIGE OBELISK,NO.3, KASTURBA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 OO1,PAN: AAATI 3458A~ RBSPONDENT. (BY SRIL.JEHANGIR MISTRI, SR. COUNSEL FORSMT.VANI H, ADVOCATE)| THIS [TA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 2Q60-A OFTHE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER|DATED:13/02/2015.PASSBHBIN|ITANO.475/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR)2009-2010 AND ETC., IN ITA NO.449/2015 BETWEEN: 1.|THE COMMISSIONBR OF INCOME -TAXC.R. BUILDING,QUEENS ROAD,BRNGALURU|C.R. BUILDING,QUEENS ROAD,BRNGALURU| D |THR DEPUTY COMMISSIONBR OF INCOMBE-TAXCIRCLE -9 (1),JEEVAN SAMPIGE,& FLOOR, 1/1, SAMPIGE ROAD,MALLESWARAM,|BRHNGALURU-560 O03 . APPBLLANTS (BY SRI.K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND: M/s ICICI ECONET INTERNET |& TECHNOLOGY FUND10 FLOOR, PRESTIGE OBELISK,NO.3, KASTURBA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 OO1,PAN: AAATI 2889M ~ RBSPONDENT. (BY SRIL.JEHANGIR MISTRI, SR. COUNSEL FORSMT.VANI H, ADVOCATE)| THIS [TA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 2Q60-A OFTHE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER|DATED:13/02/2015.PASSBHBIN|ITANO.475/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR)2009-2010 AND ETC., IN ITA NO.449/2015 BETWEEN: 1.|THE COMMISSIONBR OF INCOME -TAXC.R. BUILDING,QUEENS ROAD,BRNGALURU|C.R. BUILDING,QUEENS ROAD,BRNGALURU| D |THR DEPUTY COMMISSIONBR OF INCOMBE-TAXCIRCLE -9 (1),JEEVAN SAMPIGE,& FLOOR, 1/1, SAMPIGE ROAD,MALLESWARAM,|BRHNGALURU-560 O03 . APPBLLANTS (BY SRI.K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND: M/s ICICI ECONET INTERNET |& TECHNOLOGY FUND10 FLOOR, PRESTIGE OBELISK,NO.3, KASTURBA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 OO1,PAN: AAATI 2889M ~ RBSPONDENT. (BY SRIL.JEHANGIR MISTRI, SR. COUNSEL FORSMT.VANI H, ADVOCATE)| THIS TTA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF|THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER|DATED:13/02/20195PASSED.IN.ITANO.347/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR)2008-2009 AND ETC., IN ITA NO.450/2015 BETWEEN: 1.THR COMMISSIONBR OF INCOMBE-TAXC.R. BUILDING,QUEENS ROAD,BRNGALURU|C.R. BUILDING,QUEENS ROAD,BRNGALURU| 2.THR INCOMBEB-TAX OFFICECIRCLE -9 (1),JEEVAN SAMPIGE,3RD FLOOR, 1/1, SAMPIGE ROAD, CIRCLE -9 (1),JEEVAN SAMPIGE,3RD FLOOR, 1/1, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESWARAM,|BRHNGALURU-560 O03 . APPBLLANTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S INDIA ADVANTAGE FUND-1, 10 FLOOR, PRESTIGE OBELISK,NO.3, KASTURBA ROAD,BENGALURU-5b60 OO] PAN: AAATI 3344R. . RESPONDENT (BY SRIL.JEHANGIR MISTRI, SR. COUNSEL FORSMT.VANI H, ADVOCATE)| THIS TTA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF|THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER|DATED:13/02/2015—PASSBHBIN|TTA.NO.179/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR2008-2009 AND ETC., THESHK APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSIONTHIS DAY,JAYANT PATEL J©, DELIVERED THE|FOLLOWING: ORDER All the appeals are preferred by the Revenue|raising various questions, but in our view the only onecommon question which may arise for considerationcan be question No.2, which reads as under: “Whether, the Tribunal, on the facts and in the)circumstances of the case was right in holding|that the assessee trust cannot be assessed as.on AOP even though the requirements of)section 164(1) were not met, inasmuch as the)shares.oT|thebeneficiariesWETEindeterminate /unknownandhencetheassessing officer was justified in invoking the)provisions of section 164(1) of the Act and)make the assessee liable to be assessed at the!maximum marginal rate in the status of AOP.Hence it is not relevant whether the necessary|ingredients for formation of an AOP are fullfilledby the assessee or not?” 2. We may also record that the other questions|are mainly dependent upon the answer to the abovereferred question and if the answer is in negative, thenonly the other questions may arise. Hence, we mayrefer to the said aspects at the later stage. 3. We have heard Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned|Counsel appearing for the appellant-Revenue in all theappealsandMr.JehangirMistr1,learnedSeniorCounsel appearing with Ms.Vani H., learned Counselappearing for the respondents-assessee. 4. In our considered view, all the detailed facts|are not required to be narrated save and except thatthe Trusts were created on having the different nameand style who are assesses in the respective appeals.As per the Trust Deeds, the benefits were sharedamongst the beneficiaries and they were also separatelyassessed to tax under the Income Tax Act, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity). |However, when the questions arose for assessment ofthe respective Trust, the Assessing Officer found that,as the shares of the beneficiaries are non-determinable,income needs to be taxed in the hands oft the Trusteesat the maximum marginal rate and accordingly theassessment orders were issued. 4. In our considered view, all the detailed facts|are not required to be narrated save and except thatthe Trusts were created on having the different nameand style who are assesses in the respective appeals.As per the Trust Deeds, the benefits were sharedamongst the beneficiaries and they were also separatelyassessed to tax under the Income Tax Act, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity). |However, when the questions arose for assessment ofthe respective Trust, the Assessing Officer found that,as the shares of the beneficiaries are non-determinable,income needs to be taxed in the hands oft the Trusteesat the maximum marginal rate and accordingly theassessment orders were issued. o. The matters were carried in appeal before the|CIT (Appeals) and the CIT (Appeals) found that theshares were determinable and ultimately allowed theappeals of the assessees. When the matters werefurther carried before the Tribunal by the Revenue, theTribunal by the impugned order in ITA No.191/2015 at.paragraphs-60 to 65 observed thus: 60. The Issues raised by the Revenue inGrounds 4 to 7 of the grounds of appeal iswith regard to applicability of provisions of sec.164(1) of the Act. In view of theconclusion on Ground No.3 the adjudicationof other grounds may not be necessary.Since the order of the AO is based on theapplicability of the provisions of Sec.164(1) ofthe Act, we deem it appropriate to adjudicateon the issues raised in ground No.4 to 7 aswell. The provisions of Sec. 164(1) of the Actand Explin.-1 to Sec.164 are relevant in thisregard. “Sec. 164(1) lays down that where any incomeor any part thereof in respect of which thepersons mentioned in cl.(iv) of sub-section(1)of Section 160 is liable as representativeassesee or any part thereof $=%is not specifically receivable on behalf or forthe benefit of any one person;the benefit of any one person; OT $==%where the individual shares of the persons_on whose behalf or for whose benefit suchincome or such part thereof is receivable areindeterminate or unknown (such income,such part of the income and such personsbeing hereafter in this section referred to as“relevant income”, “part of relevant income”and “beneficiaries”, respectively)on whose behalf or for whose benefit suchincome or such part thereof is receivable areindeterminate or unknown (such income,such part of the income and such personsbeing hereafter in this section referred to as“relevant income”, “part of relevant income”and “beneficiaries”, respectively) tax shall be charged on the relevant incomeor part of relevant income at the maximummarginal rate. Explanation 1 to Sec.164 lays down that|any income or part thereof to whichsection 164(1) applies shall be deemed asbeing not specifically receivable on behalfor for the benefit of any one person unlessthe person on whose behalf or for whosebenefit such income or such part thereof isreceivable during the previous year isexpressly stated in the order of the Courtor the instrument of trust or waki deed, asthe case may be, and is identifiable assuch.OT]thedateoT|such|order,instrument or deed;(ii) the individualshares of the persons on whose behalf orfor whose benefit such income or such platthereof is received shall be deemed to be.indeterminate or unknown unless the’individual shares of the persons on whose|behalf or tor whose benefit such income or.such.partthereot1Sreceivable,|alte expressly stated in the order of the Courtor the instrument of trust or waki deed, asthe case may be, and are ascertainable assuch.OTlthedateoT such|order,instrument or deed.”| expressly stated in the order of the Courtor the instrument of trust or waki deed, asthe case may be, and are ascertainable assuch.OTlthedateoT such|order,instrument or deed.”| 61. The general rule as laid down in Sec..161(1) is that income received by a trustee onbehalf of the beneficiary shall be assessed in.the hands of the trustee as representativeassessee and such assessment shall be madeand the tax thereon shall be levied upon andbe recovered from the representative assessee"In like manner and to the same extent as it.would be leviable upon the recoverable from.the person represented by him". To the above.rule, however, three exceptions have been.incorporated in the Act:- (a)Under.s.161(1A),thisruleoT|apportionmentanddetermination oT|proportionate tax attributable to thebeneficiary will not apply to any incomeearned by the trustee as profits andgains of a business. The whole of suchincome shall be taxed at the "maximum marginal rate". A similar proviso occursalso in s.164(1) restricting benefits wherebusiness income is involved. — (b) Under s. 164(1), if the beneficiaries are notidentifiable or the individual shares ofthe persons on whose behalf and forwhose benefit the income is receivableare indeterminate or unknown, suchincome, again, will be taxed at the"Maximum marginal rate".identifiable or the individual shares ofthe persons on whose behalf and forwhose benefit the income is receivableare indeterminate or unknown, suchincome, again, will be taxed at the"Maximum marginal rate". (c) In certain other circumstances, set out inthe proviso to s.164(1), the relevantincome will be assessable not at themaximum rate but at the rate applicableto it as if it were the total income of anAOP. ~the proviso to s.164(1), the relevantincome will be assessable not at themaximum rate but at the rate applicableto it as if it were the total income of anAOP. ~ 62. In the present case the AO has notinvoked the provisions of Sec.161(1A) of theAct or the proviso to Sec.164(1) of the Act and.therefore,WE|neednotexaminethoseprovisions. As|far.aS|identificationot individual shares of the Sec.164(1) of the Act.will not get attracted for the reason that thebeneficiaries are not identifiable. 63. The question for our considerationtherefore1S.regarding applicabilityoT|sec. 164(1) of the Act. There are two aspects to be noticed in the above provisions. Thefirst aspect is the identification of the|beneficiaries. The second aspect is with|regard to ascertainment of the share of thebeneficiaries. 64. On the aspect of identification of thebeneficiaries, it is the plea of the learnedcounsel for the Assessee that so long as theTrust.deedgives”thedetailsoT|thebeneficiaries and the description of theperso’who|1STO bebenefited, thebeneficiaries cannot be said to be uncertain.CBDT Circular No281 dated 22.9.1980wherein the CBDT has explained the scope ofsec.164 with regard to stating the name ofthe beneficiaries in the trust deed. In the saidcircular the provisions of Expln.-1 to Sec.164ot the.Actregardingidentification|oT|beneficiaries has been explained to the effectthat for identification of beneficiaries it is notnecessary that the beneficiary in the relevantprevious year should be actually named inthe order of the Court or the instrument of trust or wakf deed, all that is necessary isthat the beneficiary should be identifiablewith reference to the order of the Court or theinstrument of trust or wakt deed on the dateof such order, instrument or deed. We findthat Clause 1.1.13 of the Trust Deed clearlylays down that beneficiaries means thePersons, each of whom have made or agreedto make contributions to the Trust inaccordance with the Contribution Agreement.We are oft the view that the above clause issufficientTOidentifybeneficiaries. the trust or wakf deed, all that is necessary isthat the beneficiary should be identifiablewith reference to the order of the Court or theinstrument of trust or wakt deed on the dateof such order, instrument or deed. We findthat Clause 1.1.13 of the Trust Deed clearlylays down that beneficiaries means thePersons, each of whom have made or agreedto make contributions to the Trust inaccordance with the Contribution Agreement.We are oft the view that the above clause issufficientTOidentifybeneficiaries. the 65. On the aspect of ascertainment of shareof the beneficiaries, we find that Article 6.5)of the Trust Deed clearly specifies themanner in which the income of the ASSeSSEeis to be distributed. The said clause details|formula with respect to the share of eachbeneficiary. As rightly contended on behalfof the Assessee it is not the requirement oflawthat|Trustdeedshouldactuallyprescribe the percentage share of the. beneficiary in order for the trust to be.determinate. It is enough if the shares are.capable of being determined based on the.provisions of the trust deed. In the case ofthe Assessee the trustee have no discretion|to decide the share of each beneficiary and.are bound by the provisions of the trust.deed and is duty bound to follow the.distribution mechanism specified in the.trust deed. The further aspect that may.require consideration in the present case is.with regard to the clause in the Trust Deed.which>authorisesadditionoT|furthercontributors to the trust at different points.of time in addition to initial contributors.|Krom this clause can it be said that share|income oft the beneficiaries cannot bedetermined or known from the trust deed.|On the above aspect, we find the AAR in thecase of XYZ In re (supra) has consideredsimilar clause in a trust deed with specificreference to the provisions of Sec.164(1) ofthe Act and has held that if the trust deed. sets out expressly the manner in which the.beneficiaries are to be ascertained and also'the share to which each of them would be!entitled without ambiguity, then it cannot.be said that the Trust deed does not name§the beneficiaries or that their shares are.indeterminate. The persons as well as the.shares must be capable of being definitelypin-pointed and ascertained on the date of.the trust deed itself without leaving these to.be decided upon at a future date by aperson other than the author either at his—discretion or in a manner not envisaged in.the trust deed. Even if the Trust deed.authorises addition of further contributors|to the trust at different points of time, inaddition to initial contributors, than the.same would not make the beneficiaries|unknown or their share indeterminate. Evenif the scheme of computation of income of.beneficiaries 1Scomplicated, 1T1SNOTpossible to say that the share income of the.beneficiariescannotbe|determined|OT known from the trust deed. In view of the.aforesaid decision of the AAR, with which)we respectiully agree, we hold that the.provisions of Sec. 164(1) of the Act would notbe attracted in the present case. We also.find that the Hon'ble Madras High Court inthe case otP.Sekar Trust (supra) and ManilalBapalal (supra)| has taken a view thatidentity by reference to the terms of the.trust deed is. sutficient and it is. nonecessary that the beneficiaries should be.specifically named in the deed of trust.Consequently Grounds 4 to 7 raised by the.Revenue are held to be without merit." and ultimately the Tribunal found that the grounds.raised by the Revenue on the non-ascertainability ofthe shares of the beneficiaries and consequently thechargeability of the income in the hands of the Trustees_at the maximum marginal rate was without merit. |Under the circumstances, the present appeals before| this Court. It is not in dispute that similar view is)taken by the Tribunal which are subject matter of otherappeals. and ultimately the Tribunal found that the grounds.raised by the Revenue on the non-ascertainability ofthe shares of the beneficiaries and consequently thechargeability of the income in the hands of the Trustees_at the maximum marginal rate was without merit. |Under the circumstances, the present appeals before| this Court. It is not in dispute that similar view is)taken by the Tribunal which are subject matter of otherappeals. 6. As such, in our view the matter should rest asthe finding of fact for the simple reason that whetherthe Trust Deed provides for shares of the beneficiarieswhich are determinable or non-determinable would|vary from facts to facts of each Trust including that ofthe deed of trust etc. Such finding of fact can bearrived at aiter interpretation of the terms andconditions of the Trust Deed as well as the other factsand circumstances which may be germane to reach theconclusion on the finding of fact. If the matter is torest on the question of finding of fact, in our view, suchquestion of finding of fact would be outside the scope ofjudicial review in the present appeals which would belimited to substantial questions of law. /. However, the learned Counsel appearing for theRevenue attempted to contend that such finding of factso recorded by the Tribunal is perverse and therefore, itmay fall under the judicial scrutiny in the presentappeals. In his submission, what was required to beconsidered by the Tribunal was the exact amount ofShare by the beneficiaries and the quantificationthereot and both should have been on the date when|Trust Deed is executed or the Trust is formed. In his|!submission, if such conditions are not satisfied theshares of the beneficiaries would result into non-determinable shares. He submitted that the Tribunalhas not properly examined the matter and such findingof fact by the Tribunal could be said as perverse. 8. In our view, it is by now well settled that the|perversity can be tested in two ways. One, if anyfinding of fact is not supported by record and is on some hypothesis or surmises. The second test is, that.the finding arrived at which any person with reasonableprudence may not record. Then it can be said that suchfinding is perverse. 9. Examining the matter in the present case it|appears that it is not the case of the Revenue that the|findings so recorded is such, which no man withreasonable prudence would arrive at such finding. But.the contention sought to be canvassed is that on the.date of execution of the Trust Deed, the shares should|specifically come in existence with the quantification|and it need not depend upon the future share of the)benefits or upon any future contingency. 10. In our view, the contention is wholly|misconceived for three reasons. One is that by no.interpretative process the explanation to Section 164 ofthe Act, which is pressed in service can be read for determinability of the shares of the beneficiary with thequantum on the date when the Trust deed is executed|and the second reason is that the real test is the'determinability of the shares of the beneficiary and is—not dependent upon the date on which the trust deedwas executed if one is to connect the same with the|quantum. The real test is whether shares aredeterminable even when even or after the Trust 1s)formed or may be in future when the Trust is inexistence. In the facts of the present case, even the |assessing authority found that the beneficiaries are toShare the benefit as per their investment made or to.say in other words, in proportion to the investment.made. Once the benefits are to be shared by thebeneficiaries in proportion to the investment made, anyperson with reasonable prudence would reach to theconclusion that the shares are determinable. Once the shares are determinable amongst the beneficiaries, itwould meet with the requirement of the law, to come)out from the applicability of Section 164 of the Act. shares are determinable amongst the beneficiaries, itwould meet with the requirement of the law, to come)out from the applicability of Section 164 of the Act. 11. Under the circumstances, we cannot acceptthe contention of the Revenue that the shares werenon-determinable or the view taken by the Tribunal isperverse. On the contrary, we do find that the viewtaken by the Tribunal is correct and would not call forinterference so far as determinability of the shares ofthe beneficiaries are concerned. 12. Once the shares of the beneficiaries are tound|to be determinable, the income is to be taxed of thatrespective sharer or the beneficiaries in the hands ofthe beneficiary and not in the hands of the Trusteeswhich has already been shown in the present case. 13. Under the circumstances, in any case, it|cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed error.Accordingly, the question is answered in affirmativeagainst the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 14. If the assessment under Section 164(1) of the|Act is not maintained in the hands of the Trustees, theother question raised by the Revenue, in our view,would not arise. The examination of such questions|inspite of our answer to the above referred questionwould only be a mere academic exercise which Court.would not undertake and Court would rather decide|the questions which are really required to be decided. |Hence, we find that the other questions which areraised in the appeals, as such, would not arise norwould be required to be considered. �(���;�:=1A�?6�/01�28?:1!�2..�23312.4�251� 7=4C=4417������������������� ��������������������� ����'��