1938 (11) TMI 17 - HC - Income Tax

Court clarifies tax liability for Mutavalees in Wakf properties, beneficiaries responsible for assessment.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY Versus ABUBAKER ABDUL REHMAN AND OTHERS

The court held that the Mutavalees constituted an association of individuals under Section 3 of the Indian Income-tax Act. However, they were not ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the Mutavalees constitute an association of individuals within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. Whether the Mutavalees can be said to be the owners of the properties within the meaning of Section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and were rightly assessed as such.3. Whether the assessees were rightly assessed as owners of the Wakf properties under Section 9 of the said Act.4. Whether the Income-tax Authorities were bound to assess the income of the Wakf immoveable properties directly to the five beneficiaries mentioned in the Deed of Wakf.Detailed Analysis:1. Association of Individuals:The court addressed whether the Mutavalees (assessees) constitute an association of individuals under Section 3 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Commissioner of Income-tax argued that the Mutavalees, by agreeing to act as trustees and managing the Wakf properties, formed an association of individuals. This association was for the common purpose of managing the properties and acquiring income. The court affirmed this view, concluding that the Mutavalees do indeed constitute an association of individuals within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act.2. Ownership under Section 9:The critical issue was whether the Mutavalees could be considered the owners of the Wakf properties under Section 9 of the Act. The court examined the language of Section 9, which states that tax shall be payable by an assessee in respect of the bona fide annual value of property of which he is the owner. The court noted that while the Mutavalees are the legal owners of the properties, the ultimate beneficiaries of the income are the settlor's wife and children. The court held that the term 'owner' in Section 9 should be interpreted as the owner of the income rather than the legal owner of the property. Therefore, the court concluded that the Mutavalees were not the owners within the meaning of Section 9 and should not be assessed as such.3. Assessment of the Assessees:The court further considered whether the assessees were rightly assessed as owners of the Wakf properties under Section 9. The Commissioner had previously assessed the beneficiaries on the income they received, but later changed this practice. The court referred to previous judgments, including Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim's case, which established that prima facie, the owner of the income should be assessed. The court held that the beneficiaries, who receive the income from the Wakf properties, should be assessed rather than the Mutavalees.4. Direct Assessment of Beneficiaries:The final issue was whether the Income-tax Authorities were bound to assess the income of the Wakf properties directly to the five beneficiaries mentioned in the Deed of Wakf. The court concluded that the authorities were indeed bound to assess the beneficiaries directly. The rationale was that the beneficiaries are the actual recipients of the income, and thus, they should be liable for the tax.Conclusion:The court answered the questions as follows:1. In the affirmative, confirming that the Mutavalees constitute an association of individuals.2. In the negative, stating that the Mutavalees are not the owners of the properties within the meaning of Section 9.3. In the negative, concluding that the assessees were not rightly assessed as owners of the Wakf properties.4. Affirmatively, stating that the Income-tax Authorities were bound to assess the five beneficiaries directly.The court ordered that costs be paid on the original side scale. Both judges agreed on this interpretation, emphasizing that the assessment should target the actual recipients of the income, aligning with the scheme of the Act and relevant legal principles.