Judgment :- P.D.Dinakaran, J. Heard. The appeal is preferred against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras Bench "B" dated 01.01.1999 in I.T.A.1857/89. 2.1. The assessee is a private trust created on 02.04.1982 and managed by two trustees specified in the deed with whom the required powers are vested, having 12 beneficiaries, out of which 6 are majors and 6 are minors. The said trust derives income by way of business conducted by the trust. The assessee filed its return, claiming that the income of the trust was to be allocated and apportioned among the beneficiaries and assessed in their hands separately. The assessing officer took the view that since the trust included major beneficiaries as well as minor beneficiaries and it was carrying on business, the profits of which were being shared by the beneficiaries, they constituted an association of persons. 2.2. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 15.02.1989, allowed the claim of the assessee, against which the appellant/revenue filed a further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, raising an additional ground to the effect that the CIT (Appeals) went wrong in entertaining the appeals, which became final and therefore the assessee could not re-agitate the issue on merits. 3. The appellant/revenue has raised two substantial questions of law, which reads as follows:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the beneficiaries of the trust do not form an "Association of Persons" and consequently the trustees cannot be assessed in the status of "Association of Persons"? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the order passed by the CIT u/s 263 is only to conduct a de-novo enquiry by the assessing officer and the assessee is entitled to re-agitate the same issue by way of this appeal? 4. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the order passed by the CIT u/s 263 is only to conduct a de-novo enquiry by the assessing officer and the assessee is entitled to re-agitate the same issue by way of this appeal? 4. The substantial questions of law raised in this appeal are answered against the appellant/revenue by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in "Commissioner of Income Tax -vs- Marsons Beneficiary Trust (188 ITR 224), wherein it was held as follows:- "Under Section 161 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the tax shall be levied upon and recovered from a trustee in like manner and to the same extent as it would be leviable upon and recoverable from the person represented by him. In other words, income which comes to the share of a beneficiary has to be assessed as if it were the income of the beneficiary, and tax has to be levied accordingly. Section 161(1) makes no distinction between the business income of a trust and any other income of a trust. Hence, all kinds of income of a trust have to be assessed under Section 161(1). Trustees who are authorised to carry on business under the terms of deed of trust are not in the same position as receivers. An association of persons as used in Section 3 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, means an association in which two or more persons join in a common purpose or common action, and as the words occur in a section which imposes a tax on income, the association must be one the object of which is to produce income, profits or gains. Trustees derive their authority to carry on business, nor from the beneficiaries, but from the settlor under the terms of the deed of trust. They do not require the consent of the beneficiaries for exercising their authority under the deed of trust. The authority is conferred on them by the settlor. The beneficiaries are mere recipients of the income earned by the trust." 5. The aforesaid view has been reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in T.C.Nos.661 and 662 of 1994, by a judgment dated 15.12.1998. 6. The authority is conferred on them by the settlor. The beneficiaries are mere recipients of the income earned by the trust." 5. The aforesaid view has been reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in T.C.Nos.661 and 662 of 1994, by a judgment dated 15.12.1998. 6. Accordingly, following the said judgments, the present appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal are answered against the revenue.