LexCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, BIHAR AND ORISSA versus KIRPASHANKAR DAYASHANKAR WORAH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
968 A COMMISSIONER OF WEALm TAX, BIHAR AND • D E F G H ORISSA v. KIRPASHANKAR DAYASHANKAR WORAH July 29, 1971. [K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JI.] Wealth Tax A.ct (27 of 1957), s. 21(1} & (4'r-Liability of tnH1ce t• be &rttssed to wealth tax-Scope of s. 21(4). The respondent, by means of a trust-deed, transferred certain proper~ ties described in the deed unto himself as a trustee for making pr..>- vision for the maintenance of himself and his wife. for the maintenance. education and marriage expense.s of his unmarried daughters, and for the maintenance and education expenses of his minor sons. For the as~!Wment years 1957 to 1961 the Department assessed the respondent to wealth-tax in respect of the trust properties as a trustee under s. 21 of tho Wealth Tax Act 1957. The respondent contended that: (1) Since, as a trustee he waa only holding the properties for the benefit of the beneficiaries and not uu behalf of the beneficiaries as laid down in the section he was not asses.sable to wealth-tax. and· (2) as the share of each of the beneficjarjes was ovt indeterminate, he should not be taxed at the maximum rate. The High Court in reference held that respondent Yt·as not a.~~es~abte to wealth tax. HELD: In appeal to this Court, S. 21(1) of the Act specifically refers to uustees. The Leaislature i• competent, in the absence of any restrictions placed on it by the Consticu- tion, to give its own meaning to the words used by it in a statute. In tho Wealth Tax Act, Parliament, while enacting s. 21(1) & (2) of the Act, pro- ceeded on the basis that for the purpose of that Acl a trustee is holding the trust property on behalf of beneficiaries. The mere fact that this con- ception doea not accord with the provisions of the Trust Act doeo not invalidate the section. If the construction contended for on behalf of the respondent is accepted then a part of the section wouid bec:op1e otioi;c. While a taxing provision must be strictly construed by courts and lhe bene- fit of any ambiguity must to go the assessee, if the intention of the Legis- lature is clear and beyond doubt then the fact that the provision could have been more artistically drafted cannot be a ground for treating any part of a provision as otiose. [9738-F] Therefore a trustee is assessable to wealth tax under the Act even as it then stood. [975B) Suhruhini Karuri v. Wealth Tax Officer, 46 I.T.R. 953, and 1'ru,fte~s of Gordhandas Govindram Family Charity Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, 70 l.T.R. 600, approved. Commissioner of lncome·tax v. Puthiya Ponamanichiritakam Wakf, 44 I.T.R. 172 (S.C.), Commissioner of Income-tax, v. Kokila Devi, 77 I.T.R.. 350 (S.C.), The Commissioner of Income-tax v. Manila Bharti, [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 902 and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Manag;ng Trustees Nagor Durgha, 57 I.T.R. 321 (S.C.), referred to. ·' WEALTH TAX COM!olR., v. K. D, WOl\AH (Htgdt, J.) W.O. Ho/daworth v. State of U.P., 33 I.T.R. 472 (S.C.), explained. (2) In the present case, on the relevant dates, the settlor as well as his wife were alive and had a right to be maintained out of tho trust proper- ties and they bad also a right of residence in a part of the trust property, and two of the sons of the settlor bad a right to be maintained and educat- ed. Therefore the shares of tho beneficiaries were indeterminate, and hence, the trustee had to be assessed under s. 21(4) of the Act as it then stood. [97SH; 976A·Bl OV!L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1478 to 1481 of 1967. Appeals from the judgment and order dated April 13, 1966 969 A B of the Patna Court in Misc. Judicial Cases Nos. SS2 to SSS of 1964. C Jagadish Swarup Solicitor-General, A. N. Kirpal, B. D. Sharma and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant (in all the appeals). M. C. Setalvad, S. K. Mitra and A. K. Nag, for the respondent ~in all the appeals). D The Judgment of the-Court was delivered by Degele J.-This appeal by certificate arises from the decision of the High Court of Patna in a reference under s. 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 19S7 (which we shall hereafter refer to as the Act). The question of la.w arising for decision in these appeals E is : "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the trustee under the Trust deed dated 19th July 1949 executed by Kirpashankar D. Worah was assessable to wealth tax under Section 21 of the Wealth Ta·x Act ?" The tribunal upheld the contention of the R
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.