AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajagopalan, J.—Six questions were referred for the determination of this Court u/s 66(1) of the Income Tax Act. It may not be necessary
to set out over again the relevant facts to answer some at least of the questions.
The fifth of the questions ran:
Whether the dividend of Rs. 7,500 received in the '' previous year'' for 1945-46 assessment from the Beverley Estates, Ltd., Madras, is income
exempt u/s 4(3)(viii) of the Income Tax Act?
The answer to this question is concluded by the authority of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bacha F. Guzdar Vs. Commissioner of Income
Tax, Bombay, . The question is answered in the negative and against the assessee.
The sixth question ran:
Whether the assessment in the assessment year 1947-48 of the gross income from the investment of shares in Avra, Ltd., before deduction of the
Ceylon Income Tax thereon, is valid and proper?
A similar question with reference to the provisions of the Ceylon Income Tax Ordinance was considered by us in Ramaswami Naidu and
Govindaswami Naidu v. Commissioner of Income Tax R.C. No. 27 of 1954. The principles we laid down in that case apply. The question is
therefore answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The sum of Rs. 9,562, which was deducted by the Company before the
dividends were paid to the assessee was never the income of the assessee.
The first question ran:
Whether there Was material for the Tribunal to hold that the business of stores and/or mills were separate and independent from the main shop, so
as not be entitled to any relief u/s 25(4) of the Act in respect thereof?
This question arises only in relation to the proceedings in the assessment year 1945-46. There was ample material on which the Tribunal could rest
its conclusion that what were referred to as stores, mills and the main shop, each constituted a distinct line of business. The Tribunal, was therfore,
jusified in coming to the conclusion that the relief u/s 25(4) of the Act had to be restricted only to the profits from the business designated the ''main
shop'' The question is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee.
Questions (ii) and (iii) arise out of proceedings of the assessment yeart 1947-48. Here again it may not be necessary to set out at any length the
relevant facts which have already been set out in the statement of the case.
Question No. (ii) ran:
Whether the assessee is entitled to an order u/s 25-A (1) of the Act.
Question (iii) ran:
If the answer to question (ii) is in the negative whether the Ceylon immovable properties and/or the shares in Avra, Ltd., belonging to the family
ceased to be the assets of the joint family after 10th February, 1947 and the income therefrom accruing thereafter required to be excluded from the
assessment of the year 1947-48?
The genuineness of the partition arrangements made with effect from 10th February, 1947, was never in issue. In the course of his arguments the
learned Counsel for the assessee could not really assail the correctness of the finding of the Tribunal, that though the shares of the three members of
the quondam Hindu undivided family were defined, there was no allocation of the individual items of the immovable properties in Ceylon to each of
the sharers. All that the learned Counsel for the assessee could point out was that the income from this immovable property was divided in equal
shares as shown in the accounts, and that each sharer enjoyed his share of income separately That may not be sufficient to satisfy the requirements
of Section 25-A. The immovable property was certainly capable of division by metes and bounds and there was no such division. The income
from the immovable properties in Ceylon even after 10th February, 1947, was therefore, liable to be assessed as the income accruing to a Hindu
undivided family. Question (ii) is therefore answered in the negative and against the assessee.
In view of what we have recorded in considering the second question, there should be no further need to refer again to the income from the
immovable properties in Ceylon in considering question (iii). We shall therefore, confine ourselves to the dividend income from the shares held by
the three members of the quondam joint family in Avra Ltd. Even there our answer to question (ii) may have no real bearing on the assessment
proceedings for 1947-48, because it was not shown to us that any dividend income accrued in the relevant year of account subsequent to 10th
Februry, 1947. But this is a point that will have to be verified by the Tribunal in giving effect to our answer to the third question.
The relevant facts were as follows : The Hindu undivided family carried on three lines of business, referred to in the statement of the case as the
main shop, the stores and the mills. With effect from 1st June, 1944, these three businesses were transferred to the limited company called Avra
Ltd., Colombo, with 6,425 fully paid up shares of Rs. 100 each. Out of this each of the three members of the family, Veerappa Chettiar,
Ramanatha and Adaikappan was allotted 2125 shares, and this holding continued to be shown in the books of the Company right through. It
should be remembered that in June, 1944, all the three constituted an undivided family. The partition was with effect from ioth February, 1947. The
Tribunal'' recorded in paragraph 8 of the statement of the case:
...nor were the 6,375 shares held by the family in Avra Ltd; albeit standing in the names of three members separately, re-transferred to them in
their individual status on partition.
The further statement in paragraph 9 was:
...nor the shares in Avra Ltd. which only stood in the names of the three-members, as the nominees of the family and not in their own right, at any
time, and continued to stand undisturbed as shown by Annexure E aforesaid, could be said to have been divided in definite portions within the
meaning of Section 25-A (1) of the Act, though their shares could be said to have been defined by virtue of the Annexures C and D aforesaid....
We are really unable to follow the reasoning of the Tribunal. No doubt in 1944, when the shares were allotted to three individual members,
they constituted a Hindu undivided family. Each of them vis-a-vis the company was the shareholder. Inter se the members their rights and liabilities
were governed by their status as undivided members of a Hindu family. We really fail to see what more they need have done themselves to
continue the registry as separate shareholders in the books of the company after the partition on 10th February, 1947. Their rights and obligations
inter se as members of an undivided family ceased on 10th February, 1947. Their rights vis-a-vis the Company continued undisturbed as individual
sharers. There can be no question for example of transferring 2,125 shares held by Veerappa to Veerappa himself on 10th February, 1947. The
books of the assessee showed that the dividend income in the subsequent years was credited to each of the three members of the family. On the
material on record the only conclusion that was possible was that the partition of the shares, which we would again stress governed the rights inter
se the three members of the family, was completed even on 10th February, 1947, itself, and that there was nothing further to be done to give effect
to the allocation of the shares in the books of the Company. Even if a formal declaration by the members of the family were required, that was
forthcoming. The Assistant Commissioner referred to the statement on oath made by the members that there were no assets left in common. That
will certainly apply to the shares, though it may not help to satisfy the requirements of Section 25-A (1) in relation to the immovable properties held
in Ceylon.
Our answer to question (iii) is that the immovable properties in Ceylon did not cease to be the assets of the joint family after 10th February,
1947, but that the shares-in Avra, Ltd., ceased to be the assets of the joint family after 10th February, 1947. The income accruing from the shares
to each of the three members after 10th February, 1947, had to be excluded from the assessment of the Hindu undivided family.
The last of the questions we have to answer is question (iv) which ran:
Whether the rates paid to the Colombo Municipality on the Ceylon house properties are deductible in computing the rental income therefrom in the
four assessment years 1944-45 to 1946-48.
We have to answer this question with reference to the relevant provisions of Section 9(1) of the Income Tax Act, and the provisions of the
Ceylon Municipal Councils Ordinance regulating the assessment, levy and collection of rates on houses in Ceylon.
The relevant provisions of Section 9(1) of the Income Tax Act ran:
The tax shall be payable by an assessee under the head ''income from property'' in respect of the bona fide annual value of property consisting of
any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto of which he is the owner.... subject to the following allowances, namely:
* * * * * *
(iv) Where the property is subject to a mortgage or other capital charge, the amount of any interest on such mortgage or charge; where the
property is subject to an annual charge not being a capital charge, the amount of such charge; where the property is subject to a ground rent, the
amount of such ground rent; and Where the property has been acquired, constructed, repaired, renewed or reconstructed with borrowed capital,
the amount of any interest payable on such capital.
* * * * * *
Explanations.-For the purpose of Clause (iv) of this Sub-section, the expression ''annual charge'' does not include any tax in respect of property or
income from property levied by a local authority or a State Government or the Central Government.
The relevant portion of Section 115(1) of the Municipal Council''s Ordinance, Ceylon, ran:
...the Council shall from time to time, so often as they think necessary, make and assess with the sanction of the Governor any rate or rates on the
annual value of all houses and buildings of every description, and of all lands and tenements whatsoever within the town.
Such rate or rates
(a) shall endure for any period not exceeding twelve months,
* * * * * *
(b) shall be payable by such instalments and at such times as the Chairman, with the sanation of the Council, shall direct....
As the learned Counsel for the assessee pointed out, that made it clear that the rates were annual; it was the annual rental value that furnished the
basis. That conclusion is reinforced by Section 117(8) which runs
Every assessment against which no objection is made shall be final for the year.
Section 135 of the Ordinance provided for the recovery of unpaid rates assessed, on house property. It authorised recovery by
seizure and sale of all and singular the movable and immovable property of the proprietor,'' or of any joint proprietor, of-the premises on account
of which such rate or rates may be due, and of all movable property, to whomsoever the same may belong, which may be found in or upon any
such premises.
Under Section 138 of the Ordinance the property seized under the provisions of Section 135 could be sold. Section 142 directed that, if land, or
other immovable property was thus sold, it was to vest in the purchaser free from all encumbrances.
There was nothing in the Ceylon Municipal Councils Ordinance correspondent for instance to Section 103 of the Madras City Municipal Act
which runs:
The property tax on buildings and lands shall, subject to the prior payment of the land revenue, if any, due to the Government thereon, be the first
charge upon the said buildings or lands and upon movable property, if any, found within or upon such buildings or lands and belonging to the
person liable to such tax.
Section 85 is an analogous provision in the Madras District Municipalities Act V of 1920.
Thus the position in Ceylon is, that the owner of the house assessed to Municipal rates is under a legal liability to pay those rates. Those rates
are annual but provision is made under the Statute for payment of these rates in instalments. Whether factually any instalments were fixed is not
clear from the material made available to us. For non-payment of the rates any property of the defaulting owner is liable to seizure and sale. We
can leave out of account the liability of properties, belonging to others but found on the premises assessed to municipal rates, to seizure and sale for
non-payment of these rates. No provision is made by the laws in Ceylon for making the house property on which the rates are assessed security
for the payment of those rates. As we pointed out, there is nothing analogous to Section 103 of the Madras City Municipal Act, which makes the
tax a first carge on the house property, and makes the house security for the payment of the house tax. There is nothing in the Ceylon law even to
indicate that the income from the house property is a source from which the assessed rates have to be paid. That, of course, leaves in tact the
statutory liability imposed on the owner of the house property to pay the annual rate assessed on that property by the Municipal authorities.
Is the liability of the assessee to pay these Municipal rates in Ceylon an ""annual charge"" within the meaning of Section 9(1)(iv) of the Income
Tax Act is the question.
We have already pointed out that the liability to pay the rates was annual, though the Ceylon Ordinance permitted the payment in instalments. If
such a liability otherwise constitutes an annual charge, the statutory provisions to discharge that liability in instalments does not make it any the less
an annual charge. That is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in NEW PIECE GOODS BAZAR CO., LTD., BOMBAY Vs.
COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax, BOMBAY., .
The next question is does the word ""charge"" in Section 9(1)(iv) import anything more than a liability to pay an ascertained or ascertainable
amount. We have pointed out that under the laws in Ceylon the house property itself was not constituted security for the dicharge of the liability to
pay the assessed Municipal rates. Nor was the income from that house property indicated as the source from which the rates had to be paid. The
learned Counsel for the assessee contended that all that the expression ""annual charge"" in its context in Section 9(1)(iv) of the Act meant was that it
should be a payment or discharge of an annually recurring liability, that ""annual charge"" meant nothing more than an annual payment, and that there
was no scope to restrict it further by requiring that the house property in question should be security for that payment. He relied on the the
observations of Chakravarthi, C.J., in COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax, WEST BENGAL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA., .
I would only add here that the Word ''charge'', as used in Section 9(1)(iv) must mean payment and not security. The relevant words of the section
are: ''Where the property is subject to an annual charge.... the amount of such charge.'' Clearly, the phrase '' the amount of such charge'' indicates
that the word '' charge'' used in the earlier phrase also means payment. It Would be singularly inappropriate ""to use the word ''charge'' if security
was intended, for ''annual security'' would be wholly meaningless. That the meaning is '' payment'' would also seem to be clear from the Explanation
appearing after Clause (vii) of the Sub-section where it is said that the expression ''annual charge '' in Clause (iv) does not include any tax in
respect of property or income from property, if such tax is of a certain kind.
The question, whether the expression ''annual charge'' should be construed as meaning only an annual payment without any reference to
security for that payment did not really rise for determination in COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax, WEST BENGAL Vs. STATE BANK OF
INDIA., . The payments the learned Chief Justice had to consider in that case were specifically charged upon the house property in question there,
in the sense that the house property was constituted security for those payments. Though the observations are obiter they come from so
experienced and learned a Judge, they are certainly entitled to great respect. With all respect to the learned Chief Justice, we regret our inability to
accept as correct the interpretation he placed upon the expression ''annual charge'' in its context Section 9(1)(iv) of the Act.
It is true that the question whether the expression ''annual charge'' meant annual payment plus security for that payment did not directly arise in
that form for consideration in the case decided by the NEW PIECE GOODS BAZAR CO., LTD., BOMBAY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF
Income Tax, BOMBAY., .The enactments their Lordships had to consider in that case specifically imposed a statutory charge on the house
properties for the unpaid arrears of house tax. Their Lordships, however, had to construe the scope of the expressions ''capital charge'' and
''annual charge'' as they occur in Section 9(1)(iv). It may not therefore be strictly accurate to view these observations as obiter dicta; but even as
obiter, the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court are entitled to the highest respect.
Section 9(1)(iv) of the Act, it should be remembered, refers to an annual charge other than a Capital charge. Earlier in Section 9(1)(iv) the
distinction is between a mortgage and a capital charge. Obviously the same meaning should be given, if possible to the expression ''capital charge''
wherever it occurs in Section 9(1)(iv). In construing the scope of capital charge'' and in dealing with the expression '' annual charge '' other than a
''capital charge'' Mahajan, J., said at page 519 in NEW PIECE GOODS BAZAR CO., LTD., BOMBAY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF Income
Tax, BOMBAY., .
We are therefore of opinion that capital charge here could only mean a charge created for capital sum, i.e., a charge to secure the discharge of a
liability of a capital nature.
After recording with approval the principle laid down by the Allahabad High Court in GAPPUMAL KANHAIYALAL Vs. COMMISSIONER
OF Income Tax, C. P. and U. P., . Mahajan, J., proceeded:
It was said that if an annual charge means a charge to secure the discharge of an annual liability, then, capital charge means a charge to secure the
discharge of a liability of a capital nature. We think this construction is a natural construction of the section and is right.
His Lordship referred again to the need for the existence of a charge on the property for the discharge of the liability for the annual payment when
he observed at page 523:
Municipal taxes, on the other hand, do not stand on the same footing as land revenue. The law as to them varies from province to province and
there may not be necessarily a charge on property in all cases. The legislature seems to have thought that so far as municipal taxes on property are
concerned, if they fall within the ambit of Clause (iv), deduction will be claimable in respect of them but not otherwise.
In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in NEW PIECE GOODS BAZAR CO., LTD., BOMBAY Vs. COMMISSIONER
OF Income Tax, BOMBAY., we think that the question at issue before us is not really res integra.
In Burrows on ''Words and Phrases'', Vol. I, pages 411-12 the first passage under the heading ''charge'' runs:
A charge differs altogether from a mortgage. By a charge the title is not transferred, but the person creating the charge merely says that out of a
particular fund he will discharge a particular debt.
The next passage runs:
The word ''charge '' may Well be used to describe a burden imposed upon land and if a payment has to be made in respect of land, and it can only
be enjoyed subject to the liability for that payment, I cannot think that there would be any great straining of language if it were spoken of as
charged upon the land.
This second passage is an extract from the speech of Lord Herschell in Payne v. Esdaile (1888) L.R. 13 A.C. 613 . This passage taken by itself
out of its context might appear to support the contention of the learned Counsel for the assessee, that the use of the expression ''charge'' by itself
could imply nothing more than a mere liability to pay. But to understand the scope of the observations of Lord Herschell we have to examine the
context in which he made these observations. At page 622 of the Report he prefaced a discussion of the meaning to be given to the expression
''charge'' in the relevant statutes which their Lordships had to construe by saying:
The Court of Appeal have held that the payment in question is not within this definition, because though an annuity or periodical payment it is not
charged upon or payable out of land. I gather that they interpreted the words ''charged upon'' as applicable only to those cases in which there was
some remedy against the land itself. It may be admitted that this is the most common signification of the Words, and is the meaning that would be
attributed to them if there were nothing in the context to lead to a different conclusion.
Lord Herschell then proceeded to examine the context, also in relation to the previous enactments on the same subject, and after pointing out at
page 625 "" the question is certainly not free from difficulty"" he summed up ""...upon the whole I have come to the conclusion that the judgment of
the Court below on this point was erroneous....''
If the test were, does the context of Section 9(1)(iv) require a meaning different from that of the normally accepted signification in law of the
expression ''charge'' justifies, our answer is in the negative. If we may say so with respect, Chakravarthi, C.J., appears to have isolated the passage
where the property is subject to an annual charge.... the amount of such charge"" in his observations at page 559 of COMMISSIONER OF
Income Tax, WEST BENGAL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA., The expression ""charge"" occurs more than once in Section 9(1)(iv), and there is
also the Explanation to consider. The familiar legislative pattern in India is to charge the house property with the liability for the house tax. Often it
constitutes the first charge on the house property, subject to the claims of the Government for land revenue. These were in fact the charges
excluded by the Explanation. If the tax itself did not constitute an annual charge, obviously there would be no scope for recourse to the Explanation
to exclude it from the scope of Section 9(1)(iv). As pointed but by the Supreme Court in NEW PIECE GOODS BAZAR CO., LTD., BOMBAY
Vs. COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax, BOMBAY., if the expression capital charge has to be construed as a charge created for a capital sum,
that is, to secure the discharge of a liability of a capital nature, the expression annual charge in that context should mean, again in the words of
Mahajan, J., a charge to secure the discharge of an annual liability.
We are clearly of opinion that the word ""charge"" in the statutory expression ""annual charge"" in Section 9(1)(iv) connotes something more than a
mere liability to pay something more than the the annual payment. Both the concepts are involved, liability to pay and a charge on the house
property for the discharge of that liability. That charge can be contractual or statutory. It can be express or it can be implied. If, for instance, the
income from the property is shown as the source from which the liability is to be discharged law would imply a charge for that amount. In the
present case there was no charge for the payment of the assessed Municipal rates, express or implied. To sum up, the annual charge in the context
of Section 9(1)(iv) means an annual payment charged upon the house property, just as capital charge means payment of a capital nature charged
upon the house property.
In rejecting the assessee''s claim to deduct the municipal rates assessed on the assessees'' house property in Ceylon, the Tribunal recorded:
It was argued that the Explanation to section refers only to the tax levied by a local authority or a State Government or Central Government of the
Republic of India and the rates paid to the Municipality of Colombo are not within the aforesaid prohibition, the deduction claimed is undoubtedly
an annual charge, not of the nature of a capital charge and consequently permissible u/s 9(1)(iv). This argument, though attractive, is clearly
untenable as assessment of even foreign properties require to be made u/s g and the Sub-section will consequently require to be read ""mutatis
mutandis.
It was on the application of the Explanation that the Tribunal rejected the claim. We have already pointed out that the Explanation would apply
only if the Municipal rates had constituted an annual charge within the meaning of Section 9(1)(iv). We have held that they did not constitute such
an annual charge. There is therefore no necessity for us to examine, in these proceedings the scope of the Explanation, to verify if it would refer to
taxes or rates imposed by authorities outside India.
As the Municipal rates payable by the assessee under the laws in Ceylon did not constitute an annual charge within the meaning of Section 9(1)
(iv) of the Act, the assessee was not entitled to claim the payment towards those rates as lawful deductions permitted by Section 9(1) of the Act.
We answer the fourth question in the negative and against the assessee.
As neither side has wholly succeeded in this reference there will be no order as to costs.