Judgment :- R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue arising out of the assessment of the income of the respondent/assessee for the asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1978-79 is as to 'whether the Tribunal's view that s. 164(1) of the Act cannot be invoked in the assessee's case is correct in law'. 2. Sec. 164(1) of the Act may be set out at the outset as the answer to the question depends upon the true interpretation of that provision. That section reads as under, "Subject to the provisions of sub-ss. (2) and (3), where any income in respect of which the persons mentioned in cls. (iii) and (iv) of sub-s. (1) of s. 160 are liable as representative-assessees or any part thereof is not specifically receivable on behalf or for the benefit of any one person or where the individual shares of the persons on whose behalf or for whose benefit such income or such part thereof is receivable are indeterminate or unknown, tax shall be charged - (i) as if the relevant income or part of relevant income were the total income of an AOP, or (ii) at the rate of sixty five per cent whichever course would be more beneficial to the Revenue 3. The assessee is required to be taxed at the highest marginal rate under this provision if the income is not specifically receivable on behalf or for the benefit of anyone person or where the individual shares of the persons for whose benefit the income is received are indeterminate or unknown. It is clear that where the beneficiary is known and the beneficiary is one, and the income is received by the representative-assessee on his behalf or for his benefit, this provision is not attracted. 4. The Tribunal has after perusing the trust deed found that the sole beneficiary of the trust was one T. G. C. Raman S/o T. G. K. Raman. The terms of the trust provide that all the assets of the Trust are to be regarded as one single fund and held for the benefit of the beneficiary. 4. The Tribunal has after perusing the trust deed found that the sole beneficiary of the trust was one T. G. C. Raman S/o T. G. K. Raman. The terms of the trust provide that all the assets of the Trust are to be regarded as one single fund and held for the benefit of the beneficiary. It is, therefore, clear that all income received by the trust is for the benefit of the beneficiary, he being one and being known and the terms of the trust deed being such as to oblige the Trustees to apply all the assets of the trust for the benefit of that beneficiary. Sec. 164(1) of the Act is clearly inapplicable to this Trust and the trustees as representative-assessees are not to be taxed at the highest marginal rate. 5. Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned counsel for the Revenue, however, strenuously contended that the income received by the trustees, does not vest with the beneficiary, that the beneficiary has no control over that income and has no right to compel the trustees to apply the income in the manner desired by the beneficiary and therefore, it cannot be said that the income is received by the trustees on behalf of or for the benefit of the beneficiary. 6. Counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of CIT vs. T. G. K. Raman, wherein it was held that the income of the beneficiary under this trust could not be clubbed with the income of his father during the period of minority of the beneficiary, as the income did not west in the beneficiary. 7. Vesting of the income in the beneficiary is not a necessary prerequisite for the trustees to claim that the maximum marginal rate is not applicable to the income received by it on behalf of the known solitary beneficiary. The question of assessing the income of the beneficiary in the hands of the trustees would not arise if the income vests in the beneficiary, and such beneficiary is available for being subjected to tax. Had Parliament intended that the income received by the trustees on behalf of the beneficiary should vest in the beneficiary before the normal rates of tax could be levied on such income, nothing would have been simpler than an explicit statement to that effect in the section. Had Parliament intended that the income received by the trustees on behalf of the beneficiary should vest in the beneficiary before the normal rates of tax could be levied on such income, nothing would have been simpler than an explicit statement to that effect in the section. Sec. 164 only deals with the receipt of income in the hands of the representative assessee and the person for whose benefit or on whose behalf that income is received. If the beneficiary is one and it is known that the trustees received the income for that beneficiary alone and do not have the discretion to use the receipt for any purpose other than the benefit of the beneficiary, s. 164 is clearly not attracted. It is the obligation under which the money received as income is held, that is material and not the extent to which the beneficiary has control over that income. The discretion that the trustees may have in deciding the time at which and the extent to which the income so received should be disbursed to the beneficiary does not in any manner affect their obligation to apply the income so received on behalf or for the benefit of the beneficiary, solely for the benefit of such beneficiary. So long as that obligation is clear, the trustee is not liable to be taxed at the highest marginal rate. 8. In this case we are not concerned with the situation where there is a plurality of beneficiaries and the extent of whose interest in the income is in-determinate. Here there is only one beneficiary and all the income received by the trustees is to be held solely for his benefit. The several clauses in the trust deed do not in any manner permit the trustees to apply any part of the income so received for any purpose other than the benefit of the beneficiary. 9. The learned counsel for the Revenue also relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hemant Bhagubhai Mafatlal. The question there was whether the income received by the beneficiary from the trustees should be assessed in the hands of the beneficiary or in the hands of the trustees. 9. The learned counsel for the Revenue also relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hemant Bhagubhai Mafatlal. The question there was whether the income received by the beneficiary from the trustees should be assessed in the hands of the beneficiary or in the hands of the trustees. The Court having regard to the terms of the trust deed held that the trust was a discretionary trust and the income received by the trust was not the income received on behalf of or for the benefit of the beneficiary and that the money paid to the beneficiary was in fact required to be assessed in the hands of the trustees. The question here is not as to who should be assessed, but is one with regard to the rate at which the tax should be levied on the income received by the representative-assessee. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel is not of any assistance to Revenue in the circumstances of the case. 10. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the trustees have, under the terms of the trust deed a wide discretion with regard to the time at which, the manner in which, and the extent to which they would make available the income or the funds, assets of the trust to the beneficiary and, therefore, the trust should be regarded as a discretionary trust liable for tax at the highest marginal rate. Counsel relying on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Gosar Family Trust & Ors. vs. CIT & Ors., submitted that the policy of law as disclosed from s. 164(1) of the Act is to discourage discretionary trusts and this trust being discretionary, the submission of the learned counsel is s. 164(1) of the Act is required to be applied to the income of the Trust. 11. For the purpose of deciding the extent to which the statutory provision is attracted regard must first be had to the clear words used in the section, the context in which the section occurs and the object of the enactment as a whole. It is not permissible to assume a state of affairs which the law intended to discourage and thereafter read requirements into the section which are not spelt out in the section either explicitly or implicitly. It is not permissible to assume a state of affairs which the law intended to discourage and thereafter read requirements into the section which are not spelt out in the section either explicitly or implicitly. If, on a plain reading of s. 164(1), it is clear that the conditions, which, if met would render that section inapplicable, have been satisfied in a given case, it is impermissible to proceed to look into the other provisions of the trust deed to infer a discretion with the trustees and thereafter deny to the trust benefit of a normal rate of tax on the ground that despite the specified conditions having been met, there is an area of discretion available to the trustees with regard to the time, manner and extent, to which the income may be disbursed to the beneficiary, though the trustees have no discretion in choosing the beneficiary. 12. There can be no manner of doubt in this case having regard to the terms of the trust deed that the trustees have no discretion whatsoever with regard to the choice of the beneficiary. All assets held by them are meant to be held solely for the benefit of the one beneficiary viz., T. G. C. Raman and no part of the assets can be utilised by the trustees for others or for the benefit of any other third person. The income received by the trustees is clearly income received for the benefit of the beneficiary. The discretion available to the trustees with regard to the time at which, and the extent to which the money may be disbursed is not material for the purpose of deciding as to whether the section is or is not attracted in the circumstances of this case. 13. We do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The assessee is entitled to costs in a sum of Rs. 1, 000.