SHRI CHATRASINGHJI KESARI SINGHJI THAKORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY

CIVIL APPEAL No. 148/1964Supreme Court[1966] 2 S.C.R. 44028 October 1965Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI CHATRASINGHJI KESARI SINGHJI THAKORE9 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The appellant leased mines to a Syndicate. Clause 1 of Part VII of the lease required the Syndicate to discharge all public demands on the mines, except land revenue. The Syndicate paid the appellant sums described as 'Local Fund Cess' for periods ending July 31, 1951, and July 31, 1952. These payments were calculated as a percentage of the rent and royalties paid to the appellant, resulting in amounts significantly larger than the actual local fund cess due under the law, which was based on land revenue. The Income-tax Officer treated these excess amounts as part of the appellant's income for assessment years 1952-53 and 1953-54. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner initially accepted the appellant's contentions that these were not taxable as they were collected on behalf of the government or were of a casual and non-recurring nature. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the High Court upheld the Income-tax Officer's view.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the sums received by the appellant were income. The Court reasoned that the Syndicate was not an inferior holder but was discharging its contractual obligation under the lease by paying the appellant the local fund cess that the appellant was liable to pay. The appellant, by collecting these amounts from the Syndicate, was not acting as an agent of the government. The payments made by the Syndicate exceeded the actual cess payable, and these excess amounts were received and appropriated by the appellant. Therefore, these excess amounts had the quality of income and were taxable unless specifically exempted. The Court also noted that the Income-tax Officer has the jurisdiction to determine the quantum of amounts payable as local fund cess during assessment proceedings. The contention that the receipts were of a casual and non-recurring nature was not pressed before the Tribunal and was rejected by the Supreme Court, as the receipts were not accidental or fortuitous and were not shown to be non-recurring. The fact that the Syndicate had filed a suit to recover the excess amounts did not affect the character of the income in the year of receipt.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the sums of Rs. 16,309 and Rs. 39,515 received by the assessee from the Syndicate constitute 'income' for the purposes of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, under Section 2(1) (as it was then known)? - Assessee's contention: The sums were not taxable because they represented Local Fund Cess collected on behalf of the State Government or Local Board, and alternatively, they were receipts of a casual and non-recurring nature, exempt under Section 3(vii). - Revenue's contention: The sums were income as they were received by the appellant under a contract with the Syndicate and appropriated by the appellant, regardless of any potential claim for refund by the Syndicate or any mistake in calculation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 3(vii),Section 66

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

SHRI CHATRASINGHJI KESARI SINGHJI THAKORE v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY October 28, 1965 [K. SUBBA RAO, J. C. SHAH AND S. M. S!KRI, JJ.] Incon1e Tax-lvfining lease-Local cess payable under terms of lease hy lessee-Stans in excess of local cess paid :to lessor-Excess lvhether of •inconie' of lessor. A B The appellant gave certain mines on lease to a Syndicate. in lieu of C rents and royalty.

By cl. 1 Part VII of the indenture of lease the Syndicate was also required to discharge all public demands in respect of the mines made by the State Government or the local authority, except land revenue. In compliance with the said clause the Syndicate paid certain sums for the periods ending July 31, 1951 and July 31, 1952 to the appellant as 'Local Fund Cess'. This Cess was calculated by the Syndicate as a percentage of the ient and royalties paid for the mines whereas under the relervant law the oess had to be a percentage of the land revenue, D and therefore the sums paid were much larger than due. For the assess- ment years 1952-53 and 1953-54 the Income-tax Officer having juris- diction over the area treated the amounts so paid rto the appellant as part o

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 66

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 66 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →