LexCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CALCUTTA versus KOKILA DEBI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
J\2
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CALCUTTA
\'.
KOKILA DEBl
A pri/ 20, 1970
[J. c. StWI, K . s. l-JEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
fll<li<lll t11colll<'·ttU: Act, 19:!.:!.-S. 41 (I l Prfll·isa-Sn>pc nf.
1!. :t Hindu £Ovcrncd b~ M_it'ak, hara S~hocil o~ Hin~u ~aw tlcdic:ucu
certain >cl(-acquircc.l propcrues m fnvour ot the dctty _Sn Sn l•war Gopal
Jew.
He cxccutcc.I a <.Iccc.I of trust anc.I supplemented ll _by two subsequent
<.Iccc.Is.
Two-thirds of the income o( t~c trust. propcrttcs w:os unucr the
~aid c.Jccds to be utilised for the scva ot ~he dcoty and the remaining one-
third w:os to he retained in the hands of the trustees. to meet the collec-
tion charges. taxes and other incidcn~ al expense-s relillmg to the tnm pm.
pertic.<.
Under the trust·<.lccus the lnst . trustee wns to be B s thtrJ wife ..
;1nJ each of his sons on attaining mujonty was to become 11 tru>tcc auto-
mntically.
In proceedings for the a'scssment o'i inco~c-~ax , the Income-
tax OITicer a•••mcd the income from all the proper11e~ 10 the l~<mtl' of
the trustees at the maximum rate in nceortlance with the pro>ision con·
tainctl in the first proviso to section 4 1 tIl of the Intlinn Income-Iii:<; Act.
1 !1:!.:!. The order was confirmed by the Appellate A~sistant Commt,.,ioncr.
In furth~r :tppcal the Tribun~l hclo.l thJt the sole beneficiary
untl~r th~
tlcc<.l' wns the dcily Sri Sri lswar Gopal Jew.
Hence acconJing to
the
Trihunal, the first proviso to s. 41 ( 1) wa~ no~ applic:ohlc to the f:octs ol
the case and the trustees were to h.: n,scsscd in the status oi individual
in rc~pcct of the income receivctl hy them on hch:tlf of th~ Jeit~ .
The
High Court in reference took the same view as the T ribunal. The Com·
mi,.,ioner ur Income-tax appealed to thi~ coun.
The uppcllant placcJ rc-
li•ncc on the fact that in one ot the dcctls executed by B. the trustee' wcr~
rclcrrctl to •~ bcnclicianes. A> no a rgument had hcen cnnva. .. etl bctorc
the High Court or the tribunals hclo" that a deity could 'not he con,illcr<J
a ·pcr..on' within the mc;onint; or s. :!.( 9t of the Act, the Court procccJctl
on ~he ha'i~ th:l!
a deity h; a 'person' within
the mc:.nong
nf the ~.~iJ
,..;ctoon.
HELD : In one of the tru•t-<lcctls !lie trustee' "ere no duuht l'derrco.l
to as beneficia ric' hut on a reading of the entire deed it "as ck;~r th,or
rdcrencc to them los beneficiaries " a~ a misnomer :ond that they \\~ rc tll't
entitled to ~ny benefit unller any o'i tne Jccus.
Therdorc. the linJing ol
the Trihun:ol that the sole hcncficiar>· unuer the <.Iectls w:os the deity ""'
not_ open to chaflcngc, :md that bcin~ so, tflc ca'c clc:~rly fell withon th.c
m~m ,.'Ction 41 (I), and the fir' t provi><> ro thut section w:ts not :opnl!·
c.o~k to the fact< of the c.""·
On the fact•
founJ
hv the Trihun~l II
could not. be 1>aid that the income or prulits in quL-..tion i, crc. "not ~p~cill·
caflv rc.:ctvahlc hy the tru>tcc. on hdwlt of any one pcr.;on '. IJ I::> H-
316 Bl
·
·me fuel that for certain purpose.~ a
tru,tcc>hip
is con'i'krcll "'
"pmpcny" anu that the tnl\tccs hti\'C :oil int~rcst in tht: trl"l WO~ irl\.~.:-;ant
in the prc..ent context.
In con•idcrin~: the ~cope o/ ' · 41 t I) the o:'nly
thint; thM had to he seen was \<>hethcr the income in quc,tiun '"os f\.'0:1\'CJ
hy the tru,tcC"o on behalf ol any pcr.;on. (316 B-CI
AcconJingl~· the ;tppcal mu<t he Ji,mi,wJ. [316 CJ
{l;
c:
£
li
II
.,..
(
C.l. T.t CALCUTTA v. KOKILA DiBI (Hegde, J.)
3l3
A
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 220 10
8
c
1.)
E
. 230 of 1967.
·
Appeals from the judgment a:nd order dated March 18, L 966
of the Calcutta High Court in lncome-.tax Reference No. 103 of
196~.
S. K. Aiyar and B. D. Sharma., for the appellant (in all the
appeals).
The responoent did not appear.
The Judgment o the Court was delivered by
Hegde, J.
These appeals were brought on'the strength of the
certificates granted by the High Coun of Calcutta against. its judg-
ment in references under s. 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act,
1922 (hereinafter called the Act).
The questions referred to the High Court are :
, .. ( 1 ) Whether on the facts and in the circumst~nces
of the case and on a proper construction of three
deeds executed on the 3ro November, 1944,
the 25th September 1947 and the 17th March,
1951, refened to in the order, the Tribunal was
right in holding that there was only one benefi-
ciary viz. Sri Sri Iswar Gopal Jew, under tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.