COL. H. H. SIR HARINDER SINGH versus C.I.T. PUNJAB, HARYANA, J.&K. & HIMACHAL PRADESH

Citation: [1972] 2 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 15-10-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• " 
~ 
, 
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1 
COL. H. H. SIR HARINDER SINGH 
v. 
C.I.T. PUNJAB, HARYANA, J.&K. & HIMACHAL PRADESH 
October 15, 1971 
[C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, 
P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY A~D 
K. K. MATHEW, JJ.] 
lncom-tax Act, 1922, ss. 9(2) and 16(3) (b)-Whether allowance 
under s. 9(2) can be Riven in respect of more than one residential 
house-Applicability of s. l6(3)(b)-Whether applies only to cases when 
corpus of propertry is transferred or is ultimately to be tr?n_sferred to wife 
or minor child-Whether income of trust or of ,ninor child to be assessed 
in father's hands. 
The appellant created a trust in 1955 by transferring cortain securities 
held by him to a bank as trustee. 
One of the beneficiaries of the trust 
was the appeliant's minor daughter M. The income accruing to M under 
the trust during the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1957-
58, 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61 was included in the assessments made 
on the appellant as an individual far those years by applying the provisions 
of s. 16(3)(b) of the Indian Income Tax Act 1922. 
In the assessment 
for the year 1960-61 the Income-tax Ofl\cer had also to deal with the· 
appellant's claim for the allowance under s. 9(2) cif the said Act in res-
pect of two separate houses owned by the appellant and maintained by 
him for residential purposes in New Delhi. The Income tax Officer allow-
ed the claim only in respect of one of the houses. The appellant's appeals 
before the authorities under the Act failed. 
The High Court decided the 
questions referred to it against the appellant. 
In appeals before this Court 
on certificate the contentions of the appellant which fell for consideration 
were: (i) (a) that s. 16(3) (b) must be strictly construed; (b) that the 
asset5 covered by the trust deed not having been transferred to the wife or 
minor daughter but to a bank as trustee, s. 16(3)(b) of the Act had no 
application; (c) even ifs. 16(3)(b) of the Act applied, what was to be 
included in computing the total income o'f the appellant was not the in-
come that had been received by the minor daughter under the trust! deed 
but only so much of the income of the trustee as arose from the assets 
transferred to the trustee for the benefit of the minor child; (ii) that a 
reading of the first and second provisos to s. 9(2) of the Act clearly 
showed that the allowance to an assessee is not confined only to one resi-· 
dential hou"e 
HELD: (t) (aJ It ts true thats. 16(3)(b) creates an artificialliability 
and must therefore be strictly construed. 
But in construing s. 16(3)(b) 
Courts cannot ignore the clear and unambiguous expressions contained' 
therein and all those expressions must receive a proper interpretation. 
[9 C-D] 
C.l.T. Bombay v. Mani/9/ Dhanji, 
[1962] 44 
1.T.R. 
876, C.1.T., 
Gujarat v. Keshav/al Lallubhai Patel, [1965] 55 l.T.R. 637 and; C.l.T., 
West Bengal Ul v. Prem Bhai Parekh & Ors. [1970] 77 I.T.R. 27, consi-
dered. 
(b) The contentipn that s. 16(3) (b) applies only to those cases where 
ultimately the .corpus of the trust property is also transferred to the wife-
or the minor child, must be rejected. The provisions of s. 16(3)(b) are 
very clear and .the ooly requirement so far as this aspect is concerned is 
that the assets ml!St be transferred to any person or 0$SOCiation of persons 
and that transfer of assets must be for the benefit of the wife or ·the 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1972] 2 s.c.R, 
minor child or both. In this connection it is pertinent to note the wordings 
of s. 16(3)(a)(iii) ands. 16(3)(a)(iv). The former provision clearly 
refers to assets transferred directly or indirectly to the wife by the husband 
and the latter provision refers to assets transferred directly or indirectly 
10 the minor child not being a married daughter, 
But in cl. (b) of s. 
16 ( 3) the transfer of assets is not to the wife or the minor child or both 
·but to any person or association of persons. Therefore it is clear that when 
1he legislature intended to provide for a direct transfer of assets either to 
the wi•fe or to the minor child, ii has used the expressions as are found 
ins. 16(3)(a)(iii) ands. 16(3)(a)(iv). The different phraseology used 
in cl. (b) of s. 16(3) makes it cle?.r that the transfer of assets need not 
be to the wife or the minor child. Nor does the said clause require that 
the corpus of the property so transferred to any person or association of 
'Persons should ultimately >est in the wife or the min

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.