C.I.T. BIHAR & ORISSA, PATNA vs. MAHARAJ KUMAR KAML SINGH

CIVIL APPEAL No. 297/1970Supreme Court[1973] 3 S.C.R. 52213 February 1973Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: K.S. HEGDE, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, HANS RAJ KHANNA C.I.T. BIHAR6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, holder of an impartible estate, transferred two premises to his wife for life as a supplementary maintenance grant on November 23, 1950. This was a direct transfer without consideration and not in connection with an agreement to live apart. For assessment years 1957-58 to 1960-61, the income from these properties was included in the assessee's total income under Section 16(3)(a)(iii) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922. The assessee challenged this inclusion, and the High Court ruled in his favour on the applicability of Section 16(3)(a)(iii), not addressing a related question on the computation of net annual value. The Revenue appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the income from the house properties transferred by the assessee to his wife was liable to be included in the assessee's total income. The Court found the assessee's contention that Section 9(4)(a) created a legal fiction limited only to Section 9 to be fallacious. It reasoned that Section 9(4)(a), which deemed the holder of an impartible estate as the individual owner of properties within the estate, was intended to determine the taxable income of the assessee. When an asset is transferred to the wife, the income from that asset, unless falling under exceptions in Section 16(3)(a)(ii), must be considered the assessee's income because the asset of the assessee was transferred. This did not extend the fiction beyond its purpose but gave effect to it. The Court noted that Section 27(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which replaced Section 9(4), made this implicit position explicit. Consequently, the annual value of the assessee's residential house had to be computed at 10% of the total income, which included the income from the properties transferred to his wife. The High Court's answer to the second question was vacated and answered in favour of the Revenue, and the third question was answered affirmatively in favour of the Revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the provisions of Section 16(3)(a)(iii) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922, are ultra vires the Constitution of India. 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Section 16(3)(a)(iii) applied to income arising from a property transferred by the holder of an impartible estate to his wife for maintenance. 3. Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income under Section 16(3)(a)(iii) was to be included in the total income for computing the net annual value of the residential house at 10% of the total income under the first proviso to Section 9(2). Assessee's arguments: The assessee contended that Section 9(4)(a) creates a legal fiction limited only to the purpose of Section 9 and cannot be extended to Section 16(3). The High Court accepted this argument. The assessee also initially questioned the constitutional validity of Section 16(3)(a)(iii), but this was not pressed before the High Court. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue argued that the income from the transferred properties should be included in the assessee's total income. The Revenue contended that the legal fiction created by Section 9(4)(a) was not limited to Section 9 and that the income from the transferred asset should be taxed in the hands of the assessee under Section 16(3)(a)(iii).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 16(3)(a)(iii),Section 9(4)(a),Section 9(2),Section 6,Section 4,Section 2(xv),Section 27(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

522 C.I.T. BIHAR & ORISSA, PATNA v. MAHARAJ KUMAR KAML SINGH February 13, 1973 [K. S. HEGDE, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.] Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922, ss. 16(3)(a) (a)(iii), 9(4)(a)-Hol4er of impartible estate, transferring properties of estate to his wife-fnc()me from properties whether liable to be included in i11come of assessee- Fiction created by s. 9 ( 4 )(a) re11ders assessee liable under s. 16( 3) (a)(iii).

The assessee-respondent is the bolder of an impartible estate. By an iodonture dated 23rd November, 1963, he granted to his wife two premises fer life by way of supplementary maintenance grant. If was a direct trans- fer which was admittedly not effected for any consideration or in connec- . ticiQ with the agreement to live apart.

During the assessment yean 1957-58 to 196G-61, the income from these house properties was included in the total income of the assessee under section 16(3) (a) (iii) o'f the Act At the instance of the assessee the matter was referred to the High Court.

Two questions fell for consideration before the High Court, namely, (i) whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of s. 16(3) (1) (i

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 9(2)

All 34 judgments and leading authorities on Section 9(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →