LexPHILIP JOHN PLASKET THOMAS versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CALCUTT A
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
J96J r.. S. Bansal v. Dtlhi Administrolion 1963 March 21 .. 480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l 91l4] VOL. he would have otherwise spt'nt in obtaining a succes- sion certificate, and (ii) getting the money belonging to his father as his heir. Even otherwise he secured a non-economic advantage as he got himself relieved of the trouble of getting the certificate of proof to the satisfaction of the rationing authority and the Post :Master General of his credential to receive the money. He was, therefore, guilty of making the false documents both dishonestly and fraudulently. The High Court is right in coming to the conclusion which it did. Jn the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismii8ed . • PHILIP .JOHN PLASKET THOMAS r. COMMISSIONER OF INC0:\1E TAX CALCUTT A (S. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR and :\L HIDAY.ATC:LLAH .JJ.) Income Tax-Tran..~Jer of share.,. l1!f '' man to a 11Jomau before marriay1:-l11conie /roni those $lvrre~'i not tu l1e inc.ludetl in that of her h11•lm111l-11!ea11ing of 1cifc and /11,.l,a11d-h1terpre. tatim• of •latute-lnlention of &.gislarure-lncli<m lncom e-tax Act, [.922 (11 of ]!122), 8S. /(j (3) (q) (iii), Jr,(.1) (I,), Jfj (1) (o). The appellant who was engaged to one Mrs. Knight, transferred 750 shares to her on December JO, 1947. On December Jj, 1947, the Conipany tran~ferrerl those shares in her name in its book.. On December !fl, 1947, the marriage was !'o)cmnised. The Income~tax Officer included the incon1c of Mrs. Thomas from tho•e •hares in the income of her husband. The appeal of the assessee-husband was dismi,.ed by the Appellate A!Sistant Commi'9ion.r who lielcl that the • .. 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 481 prov1S1ons of s. 16 (3) (b) and s. 16 (3) (a) (iii) applied. Appeals having failed, the Appellate Tribunal referred to the High Court the question whether the provisions of s. 16 (3) (a) (iii) would apply or those of s. JG (I) (c). The view of the High Court was that the provisions of s. 16 (3) (a) (iii) would apply and not of s. 16 (I) (c). The appellant crune to this Court after obtaining a certihcate of fitness. Held that the provisions of s. 16 (3) (a) (iii) did not apply to the present case. From whatever point of view the transfer of the shares be con!lidered, whether as a consideration for a promise to marry or a gift subject to the subsequent condi· tion of marriage, the transfer took effect immediately and was not postponed to the date of marriage. On the date of transfer, the appellant and Mrs. Knight were not husband and wife and hence there was no transfer, directly and indirectly, by the husband to his wife. All income of the wife from all assets is not includible in the income of her husband. The income from only those assests of the wife can be included in that of her husband which were transferred to her by her husband after they became husband and wife. The statute must be construecl in a manner which carries out the intention of the legislature. The intentlon of the legislature must be primarily gathered from the words of the statute itself. If the words are unambiguous or plain, they will indicate the intention with which the statute was passed and the object to be obtained by it. There is nothing ins. 16 (3) which indicates that the words •wife' or 'husband' must not be taken in their primary sense which is clearly indicative of a marital relationship. The words •wife and husband' should be given their true natural meaning. They do not include prospective husband and prospective wife. Bhogilal Laherchand v. Oommi.<sioner of Income. tax, [1954] 25 I. T. R. 523, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sodra Devi (19.57], 32 I. T. R. 615, In Re Smalley, Smalley v. Scotton, [1929] 2 Ch. 112, Doe v. Hiscocks, (1839) 5 M. &, W. 369, Lard Vestey's Executors & Vestey v. Oommissio,.er oj Inland Reveune (1949), 31 T. C. 1 and OommiPSioner of Inland Revenue v. Gaunt, (1941), 24 T. C. 69, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 352-355 of 1962. Appeals from the judgment and order dated February 28, 1961, of the Calcutta High Court in Income Tax Reference No. 49 of 1956. 190!J Philip Joh• PlAJklt I'homas •• CammisJioner of Iruome·lax, Calcutt• 1963 Philip Jclm PltJJirll 11ront'.J5 v. CommiJrioner nf lncom1-ta."<, Ca!C11fla DaJ J. 482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1964)VOL. Sachin Chaudhu.ry, D. X. B. N. Ghosh, for the appellant. ilfokh.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.