AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mullick, Ag. C.J.
The first question of law which the assessee asked the Income Tax Commissioner to refer to this Court was:
Whether the income of the assessee (the Raja of Parikud) derived from fisheries is chargeable to Income Tax or not, Parikud being a permanently settled estate.
Subsequently that question was modified and a new question was propounded, namely:
Whether the income from fisheries in this case is chargeable to Income Tax in view of the fact that the property which the assessee holds was paying a quit rent for the whole area at the time of the assignment of revenue by Government to one Fateh Muhammad in 1803 and that quit rent was fixed on an area including the area from which fishery income was derived.
The Commissioner, however, has not clearly indicated what is the precise question or questions on which he requires our opinion. We again repeat that he must find the facts clearly and then state the points of law which arise out of those facts, and on which he requires our opinion, and he may then, if he chooses, give his own opinion and discuss the case. The parties before us, however, have agreed that the point of law upon which our opinion is required is; whether the Raja of Parikud in this case is entitled to exemption for Income Tax in respect of jalkars within his tenure.
Mr. Jayaswal put the ground of exemption on the status of the Raja and the terms under which he was holding from Fateh Muhammad. It is found that in 1803 Fateh Muhammad obtained a revenue free jagir from the East India Company over a tract of land which included the lands now in suit in respect of which up to that time the Raja had been paying a tribute of Rs. 1,600 annually to the Maharattas. The effect of the settlement with Fateh Muhammad was to reduce the Raja of Parikud from an actual proprietor to a tenure-holder, and there is no analogy between the position of a permanently settled proprietor in Bengal who has entered into a permanent engagement based on gross produce in which fisheries have been included and a conquered Raja who by right of conquest was deposed from his position under the Maharattas and reduced to that of a tenure-holder. There was no undertaking between the Raja and the East India Company at all, far less an undertaking to exempt him from the liability to pay a particular tax.
It is admitted before us that the Raja was paying a sum of Rs. 1600 per annum to the Maharattas, and although there is no clear finding by the Commissioner, Mr. Jayaswal states that the East India. Company issued instructions to Fateh Muhammad not to realize more. That act on the part of the Sovereign power does not show that the Raja of Parikud was the proprietor of a permanently settled estate. The result is that the assessee cannot claim exemption from Income Tax on account of jalkar. The assessee fails and will pay the costs of this hearing. Hearing fee five gold mohurs.
Sen, J.
I agree.