Judgment N.K.Sud, J. 1. This order will dispose of three Income-tax References Nos. 47 to 49 of the 1989. Income-tax References Nos. 47 and 48, relate to Smt. Gurmail Kaur Trust, Ludhiana, for the assessment year 1982-83 and 1983-84, whereas Income-tax Reference No. 49 relates to Smt. Kartar Kaur Trust for the assessment year 1981-82. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short "the Tribunal"), vide its common order dated April 25, 1988, has allowed the applications filed by the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), and has referred the following question of law in all the three cases for the opinion of this court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that there is no legal infirmity in so far as this trust is concerned and that it could not be treated as a discretionary one to be assessed as per the provisions of Section 164 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" 2. Kartar Kaur Trust (Regd.) was created by a deed dated February 24, 1973, for which the lady bequeathed her savings for the benefit of the children of three sons of her husbands other wife, Gurmail Kaur. The children were to take per stirpes, i.e., children of each son to be entitled to one-third share equally. Initially, there were in all 11 beneficiaries--three children of one son, five children of another son and three children of the third son to whom the income was distributed according to the above arrangement as stipulated in the trust deed. 3. No income was taxed in the hands of the trust since the shares of the beneficiaries were determinate and specific. Accordingly, up to the assessment year 1981-82, share of each beneficiary was separately assessed. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala, noticed that in the financial year relevant to the assessment year 1980-81, income of this trust had not been distributed in accordance with the shares specified in the trust deed as the entire income had been distributed only to six beneficiaries. No share was given to the other beneficiaries. He further observed that under the terms and conditions of the trust, the trustees had no power to alter the shares of the beneficiaries. No share was given to the other beneficiaries. He further observed that under the terms and conditions of the trust, the trustees had no power to alter the shares of the beneficiaries. He was, therefore, of the view that the assessment for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 had been framed without examining the factual and legal implications of wrong distribution of income by the trustees. Accordingly, vide order dated March 28, 1985, passed under Section 263 of the Act, he set aside the assessments for the two assessment years with a direction to the Income-tax Officer to re-examine the same. 4. Pursuant to the order of the Commissioner, fresh assessment for the assessment year 1981-82 was framed by the Income-tax Officer on September 27, 1983, by holding that the share of the beneficiaries being indeterminate, the income of the trust was liable to be taxed in its hands at the maximum marginal rate as provided in Section 164(1) of the Act. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Ludhiana, who allowed the same holding that since the original trust deed was valid, the shares as defined therein were also valid. Accordingly, it was held that the shares of the beneficiaries being defined and determinate, the provisions of Section 164(1) of the Act were not attracted. 5. On appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal has maintained the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Ludhiana. 6. In Gurmail Kaur Trust also the beneficiaries are the same, i.e., the grand children of Gurmail Kaur. The scheme of the trust about distribution of income was identical to that in Kartar Kaurs Trust. Gurmail Kaur Trust filed its returns of income for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 on July 28, 1982, and July 19, 1983, respectively, declaring "nil" income. However, the assessments were completed by the Income-tax Officer on December 11, 1984, and November 21, 1985, respectively, by treating the trust as a discretionary trust and taxing the entire income in the hands of the trust at the maximum marginal rate under Section 164(1) of the Act. The basis of this action was again the same as in the case of Kartar Kaur Trust. The basis of this action was again the same as in the case of Kartar Kaur Trust. The assessee filed appeals against the action of the Income-tax Officer, before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Ludhiana, who vide order dated September 18, 1986, allowed the same on the basis of the reasons given by him in the appeal of Kartar Kaur Trust. The Tribunal has upheld this action. 7. The sole question for consideration in these cases is as to whether the shares of the beneficiaries of two trusts are indeterminate or unknown. It has not been denied that in the trust deeds it has been clearly provided that all the children of the three sons of Gurmail Kaur were entitled to the benefits of the entire trust property in equal share per stirpes. In other words, one-third share was to be shared equally by the existing children of each of the three sons. Thus, in so far as the trust deeds are concerned, the shares of the beneficiaries were clearly determinate. The only ground on which the Revenue has treated these trusts as discretionary trusts is that the trustees had distributed the income of the trusts only to six beneficiaries while no share was given to some of the other beneficiaries. In other words, what is contended is that since the income has not been distributed to all the beneficiaries in accordance with their shares as specified in the trust deeds, the shares of the beneficiaries have to be held to be inderminate or unknown. 8. There is no merit in this contention as is evident from a plain reading of Sub-section (1) of section (1) of Section 164 of the Act, which reads as under : "164(1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-sections (2) and (3), where any income in respect of which the persons mentioned in Clauses (iii) and (iv) of Sub-section (1) of Section 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 (such income, such part of the income and such persons being hereafter in this section referred to as relevant income, part of relevant income and beneficiaries, respectively) tax shall be charged on the relevant income or part of relevant income at the maximum marginal rate." 9. A bare reading of above shows that it is only where individual shares of the persons on whose behalf or for whose benefit income is receivable by the trust are indeterminate or unknown, the tax can be charged on such income at the maximum marginal rate. Thus what has to be seen is as to whether as per the trust deed, the shares are indeterminate or unknown. It is an admitted position that shares are not indeterminate as per the trust deed. Wrong distribution of income by the trustees may affect the rights of the beneficiaries inter se for which various other consequences may ensue, but it certainly cannot lead to the conclusion that their shares are indeterminate or unknown. In fact the very allegation of wrong distribution implies that the income has not been distributed as per the defined shares. Accordingly, the Tribunal was right in holding that so far as the trust deeds were concerned, there was no scope for holding them to be discretionary and what happened thereafter would not affect the validity of the trust. 10. The question is accordingly answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. No costs.