1944 (2) TMI 26 - HC - Income Tax

Court allows deduction of agricultural Income Tax from annuity; costs orders upheld with recalculations. Parties to bear own costs.

The court concluded that the defendant was entitled to deduct one-half of the agricultural Income Tax from the annuity payable to the plaintiff. The ... - Issues Involved:1. Deduction of Agricultural Income Tax from annuity payments.2. Classification of annuity as agricultural income.3. Definition and application of 'beneficiary' under Section 11 of the Bihar Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1938.4. Apportionment of agricultural and non-agricultural income.5. Applicability of principles from prior judicial decisions.Detailed Analysis:1. Deduction of Agricultural Income Tax from Annuity Payments:The primary issue in this case was whether the defendant, as the executor and chief legatee of the will, could deduct the agricultural Income Tax from the annuity payable to the plaintiff under the Bihar Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1938. The defendant argued that under Section 11(2) of the Act, he was entitled to deduct the amount of agricultural Income Tax from the annuity before paying it to the plaintiff. However, both lower courts rejected this claim, holding that the annuity payable to the plaintiff was not agricultural income and that the plaintiff was not a beneficiary within the meaning of Section 11.2. Classification of Annuity as Agricultural Income:The annuity in question was derived from the Dhalbhum Estate, which had both agricultural and non-agricultural income. The court had to determine whether the annuity could be classified as agricultural income. The court referred to the Judicial Committee's decision in Gopal Saran Narain Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar & Orissa, which held that an annuity does not become agricultural income merely because it is secured by a charge on land. The court concluded that the annuity payable to the plaintiff did not form part of the defendant's income and was derived directly from the estate.3. Definition and Application of 'Beneficiary' under Section 11 of the Bihar Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1938:Section 11 of the Act allows for the deduction of agricultural Income Tax if the land is held partly for the benefit of beneficiaries. The explanation to Section 11 defines 'beneficiary' as a person entitled to a portion of the agricultural income derived from the land. The court interpreted 'portion' to mean any part of the income, not necessarily an aliquot part. Therefore, the plaintiff, as a recipient of a fixed annuity from the estate's agricultural income, was considered a beneficiary under Section 11.4. Apportionment of Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Income:The court had to decide how to apportion the annuity between agricultural and non-agricultural income. It was agreed by both parties that the income of the Dhalbhum Estate was half agricultural and half non-agricultural for the purpose of this suit. The court held that the annuity should be treated as coming from both sources proportionately. Therefore, the defendant was entitled to deduct one-half of the agricultural Income Tax payable on the annuity.5. Applicability of Principles from Prior Judicial Decisions:The court referred to several judicial decisions to support its conclusions. The decision in Bejoy Singh Dudhuria v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta was particularly relevant. In that case, the Privy Council held that sums paid by the appellant to his step-mother were not his income at all, as they were charges on the estate. The court applied this principle to the present case, concluding that the annuity payable to the plaintiff did not form part of the defendant's income and was derived directly from the estate. The court also distinguished the present case from other cases cited by the lower courts, such as Gopal Saran Narain Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar & Orissa, and Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar & Orissa v. Dhaneshwardhar Misra, based on the specific facts and legal principles involved.Conclusion:The court concluded that the defendant was entitled to deduct one-half of the agricultural Income Tax from the annuity payable to the plaintiff. The orders for costs passed by the lower courts were to remain intact, except for a re-calculation of the proportionate costs based on the amount found due after allowing the deduction. The parties were to bear their own costs in the High Court.