MAHARAO BHIM SINGH OF KOTA THR.MAHARAO BRIJ RAJ SINGH, KOTA versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAJASTHAN-11, JAIPUR

Citation: [2016] 11 S.C.R. 193 · Decided: 05-12-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 11 S.C.R. 193 
MAHARAO BHIM SINGH OF KOTA THR.MAHARAO BRIJ 
A 
RAJ SINGH, KOTA 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAJASTHAN-11, JAIPUR 
(Civil Appeal No. 2812of2015) 
DECEMBER 05, 2016 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Income Tax Act, 1961: s. 10(19A) - Exemption ji·om payment 
of income-tax on the residential palace of the Ruler - Part of the 
residential palace found to be in occupation of tenant and remaining 
in occupation of the Ruler for his residence - Ruler entitled to claim 
exemption for whole of his residential palace u/s. 1O(l9A) or such 
exemption would confine only to that portion of palace in his actual 
occupation - Held: Even if the Ruler had let out the portion of his 
residential palace, yet he would continue to enjoy the exemption in 
respect of entire palace because it is not possible to split the 
exemption in two parts-one in his occupation and the other in 
possession of the tenant - If Legislature intended to spill the 'palace' 
in part(s), alike houses for taxing the subject, it would have said so 
by employing appropriate language ins. 10(19A), however; no such 
language is employed therein - Part B States (Taxation Concessions), 
Order 1950 - Paraf;raph 15 (iii). 
Interpretation of Statutes: Rule of interpretation - If two 
Statutes dealing with the same subject use different language then 
it is not permissible to apply the language of one Statute to other 
while interpreting such Statutes - Likewise, once assesseejuljills 
the conditions specified in section for claiming exe111ptio:1 under 
the Act then provisions dealing with grant of exemption to be 
construed liberally because the exemptions are for the benefit of 
assessee. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1 Section 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides 
that in computing the total income of a previous year of any 
person, any income falling within any of the sub-clauses of Section 
10 shall not be included. Sub-clause (19A) says that the annual 
value of any one palace which is in occupation of a Ruler and 
H 
193 
194 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 11 S.C.R. 
whose annual value was exempt from income-tax before the 
commencement of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) 
by virtue of the provisions of the Merged States (Taxation 
concessions) Order, 1949 or the Part B States (Taxation 
Concessions), Order 1950 would be exempt from payme:at of 
income-tax. Paragraph 15 (iii) grants exemption to the bona fide 
annual value of the residential palace of the Ruler of a State, which 
is declared by the Central Government to be Rulers ancestral 
property from payment of income-tax. [Paras 23, 24][203-A-CJ 
1.2 In order to claim exemption from payment of income-
tax on the residential palace of the Ruler under Section 10(19A), 
it is necessary for the Ruler to satisfy that first, he owns the palace 
as his ancestral property; !iecond, such palace is in his occupation 
as his residence; and third, the palace is declared exempt from 
payment of income-tax under Paragraph 15 (iii) of the Order, 1950 
by the Central Government. [Para 25][203-D] 
1.3 The view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 
the case of * B/l(lmtcluuu/m Banjdeo that even if the Ruler had 
let out the portion of his residential palace, yet he would continue 
to enjoy the exemption in respect of entire palace because it is 
not possible to split the exemption in two parts, i.e., the one in 
his occupation and the other in possession of the tenant; and the 
one taken in the case of the appellant in **Malmmo Bltim Singltji's 
case by rightly placing reliance on Bltaratc/umdra Banjdeo '.5 case 
is the correct view and there is no good ground to take any other 
view. As rightly held in the case of Blmmtc/l(lnt/ra Ba11jdeo 's case, 
no reliance could be placed on Section 5(iii) of the Wealth Tax 
Act while construing Section 10(19A) of the I.T. Act. It is due to 
marked difference in the language employed in both sections. 
[Paras 32, 33][206-E-F] 
Co111111issioner of Income-tax v. Bharatchandra Banjdeo 
(1985) 154 ITR 236 (MP); C.I.T. v. H.H. Maharao Bhim 
Singhji (1988)173 ITR 79(Raj.) - approved. 
1.4 Section 10(19A) of the I.T. Act, the Legislature has used 
the expression "palace" for considering the grant of exemption 
to the Ruler whereas on the same subject, the Legislature has 
used different expression namely "any one building" in Section 
S(iii) of the Wealth Tax Act. This distinction cannot b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.