LexCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KERALA AND COIMBATORE versus PUTHIYA PONMANICHINTAKAM WAKF MANAGER P. P. AYESHA BI BI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. 3·'S.C;R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 137 BY COURT : In accordance with the opinidn · of th~ majority, the petitions must fail except to the ext"Jnt that we declare r.10 (c) to be an unreasonable restraint upon the right of the petitioners to carry on thei.r avocation, and r. ll, when it prescribes a renewal fee of Rs. 50, invalid inasmuch as it has provided not for a fee but for a tax. Subject to this, the petitions are. dismissed. The petitioners will pay the costs of the other side (one set only), as they have lost substantially. Petitions dismissed except for sl·ight mod·ifi· cation. COMMIS8IONER OF INC0.\1E-TAX, KERALA AND COIMBATORE v. PUTHIYA PONMANICHINTAKAM WAKF MANAGER P. P. AYESHA BI BI (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SuBBA RAO and M. H!DAYATULLAH, JJ.) Income Tax-Wakf-AssesBment-If must be in tlte status of individual or as association of persons-llfut(J;waU.i, 1j a trustee-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922(11of1922), s. 41(1), First proviso-MuBBalman WakfValidating Act, 1913 (6 of 1913), ss . .3,4. The question for determination in the appeal was whether the wakfin question should be assessed to tax under s.41(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. 1922, through the manager as individual or as an association of persons at the maximum rate under the first proviso to that section on the ground that the individual shares of the beneficiaries were indeterminate and unknown. The wakf deed directed the mutawalli to do acts necessary for charitable purposes and to meet the maintenance expenses of the wakif's children, grand-children, the female children born in the future and the male children born to the said female children and after payment of taxes and meeting of expenses for repairs and maintenance of properties, to utilise the l!alance of the income for daily necessary expenses of the house and for food for purchasing dresses and other necessities for the male and female members of the tarwad, for conducting specified ~eremonies, for feeding the poor and for meet_ing such. other necessary expenses and thereafter to utilise lhe balance, if any, in acquiring properties yielding good income. 1961 Chandra/cant K rishnarao . P'l'ad,ha,n v. The Colledo'I' of Customs, Bombay Suliba Rao J. 1961 AUifUst 14. CDmmi#icmtr of Incottt1•tfJ~, Fitralo and Ooim1>otore v. Puthiyu Ponmott1chi"1r1kau1 H"akf· Manager P. 1~. Ay1eha 8j n; Si.bba Rao J, f 138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS -[1962] Held, that under.the terms of the wakf deed the individual shares of the beneficiaries were indeterminate wi1hin the meaning of the first proviso to s.41 (I) of 1he Indian 'Income:iax Act, 19~2, and as such the a>Sessee was liable to pay income-tax thereunder at the maximum rate. 1 t was not co11ect in vie\\' of ss.3 anrl 4 of the Mussalman WakfV;;lidating Act, 1913, to say that ui:der rhe wakfdeed the property vested in the Almighty and the Mutawalli did not therefore, receive the income on behalf of any person \vithin the meaningofsAl(I) of the Indian Income-Tax Act and as such the pro\'iso could not come into operation. Under the Mahomedau law wakf property \'Cs!• in the Almighty only in an ideal sense and the :\futawalli, acting in his 11an1e1 utilises the income for tl'e ad van ta~e of the Lenrficia1irs. The \\'07(lS '(011 hrhalf of any person" in s.41 or the Act, therefore, could only mean on behalf of the brneficiarirs and not on behalf of the Almighty. Jervun Do.a Sahoo v. Sha/, Ku/,eer-ood-deen, (1841) 2 M.I. A. '.'90, referred to. field, further, that there ,,.a,s no .scope for iJnporting the ~fahom~dan Law of wakf in s.41 of the Act since that section in r_xprcss terins treated the Mutawalli as a 11 ustre though hr is not one in the technical sense under 1he Mohamedan [aw. Crvxr. APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 397 of 1960. Appeal from the ju1lgmcnt and order dated November 24, 1958, of the Kerala High Court in I. T. R. No. 23 of 1957. K . • \r. Rajagopala Sastri awl P.C. ;l/enon, for the appellant. A. V. Vi.s·wanatha Sastri, Narayanaswami and R. Gopalahishnan, for the respondent. 1961. August 14. The Ju1lgment of the Court was 1lelivered by SuBBA RAO, J.-This appeal by certificate granted by the Hi,gh .Cour~ of Kenda raises ~he question of the upphca lion oi s. 41 (I) of the Indian Income-tax Act (hereinafter called .the Act) to the facts of the c11se. - + \ 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 139 One P. B. Umbichi and his wife
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.