LexTHE MEMBER FOR THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX, ASSAM versus SMT. SINDHURANI CHAUDHURANI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1019 We are of opinion that the principles bid down in Northern Aluminium Co., Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners( 1 ) and fo!cmd Revenue Commissioners v. ··N orthem Aluminium Co., Ltd.( 2 ) are applicable to the decision of the present case, and that a contingent liability in respect of unexpired risk is not an "accruing liability" within r. 2 of Sch. II to the Act. The decision appealed from is correct, and this appeal must accordingly be dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. THE MEMBER FOR THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX, ASSAM v. SMT. SINDHURANI CHAUDHURANI (with connected appeals) (BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR and J. L. KAPUR J. L. KAPUR J J.) Salami-lndicia--lf capital income-tax-Assam Agricultural 1939), s. 2(a) (i). rrceipt-Liability to agricultural Income-tax Act (Assam IX of The true indicia of salami are ( 1) its single. nonrecurring character and (2) payment prior to the cre.'.ltion of the tenancy. It is the consideration paid by the tenant for being let into po'session and can be neither rent nor re\'enue but is a capital receipt in the hands of the landlord. Kamakshya Narain Singh v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (l<J43) L.R. 70 I.A. 180, relied on. Case-law reviewed. Rire11dra Kisliore ManikYa v. Secretary of State for India, (1920) l.L.R. 48 Cal. 766, Meher Bono Khanum v. Secretary of State for India, (1925) 1.L.R. 53 CaL 34, Raja Rajendra Narayan Bhanja Deo v. Commissioner af Income Tax, (1929) l.L.R. 9 Pat. 1 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. K. C. Manavikraman Rajah, I.LR. 1945 Mad. 837, distin~ished. Consequently, where payments described· as salamis and recci\'ed by cert3in zamindar assessecs as consideration for grant- ing agricultural leases, by no means of a precarious nature, were (1) (1946] I All E.R. 546. (2) [19471 1 All E.R. 608. 1957 The Cammissioner qf Excess Profits Tax, West Bengal v T lit Ruby General J,.,uronce Co. Ltd. V enkalarama Aryar ]. 1957 April 24 1957 Thi Memh1r for th.I Board of ~griculturol In.come TIU, .Assam v. Smt. Sindhurani Chaudhurani 1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1957] all made prior to such grants and were of a non-recurring character, but calculated at rates varying with the nature of the lands and chargeable on every subsequent eviction and re-letting, they were properly so described and were neither rent nor revenue within the definition of 'agricultural income' contained in s. 2(a) (I) of the Assam Agricultural Income-Tax Act and could not be assessed to tax under the Act. CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 162 of 1955, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 of 1956. Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 5, 1953, of the Calcutta High Court (Original Side) in Income Tax Reference Appeal No. 12 of 1942 and appeals from the judgment and order dated July 2, 1952, of the Assam High Court at Gauhati in Agri- cultural Income Tax References Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 6 and 8 of 1949 respec_tively. Veda Vyasa and Nau nit Lal, for the appellants in C. A. No. 162 of 1955 and respondents in C. As. Nos. 38 to 44 of 1956. R. Bak;i, S. N. Mukerjee and R. R. Biswas, for the respondents in C. A. No. lq2 of 1955 and appellants in C. As. Nos. 38 to 41, 43 and 44 cf 1956. Appellant in C. A. No. 42 of 1956 not represented. 1957. April 24. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPVR · J.-In all these appeals the question for decision is the character and purport of the payment termed 'Salami' and whether it falls within the meaning of "agricultural income" as defined in the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act (Ass. IX of 1939) hereinafter called the "Act". C. A. No. 162 of 1955 is directed against the judg- ment of the Calcutta High Court dated January 15, 1953. C. A. Nos. 38 to 44 of 1956 have been brought against the judgment of Assam High Court dated April 2, 1952. These matters were all heard together in the Assam High Court and were disposed of by one judgment. C. A. No. 162 of 1955 relates to the assessment year 1941-42. The assessee in that case was a -/8/9 annas .. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1021 co-sharer in a zamindari estate known as "Parbatjoar estate" in Assam. The original assessee was Jyotindra Narayan Chowdhury who died on January 25, 1953, and on his death his widow, Shrimati Sindhurani Chowdhurani and others were substituted. The gross agricultural income
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.