1940 (6) TMI 17

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e by an order dated the 11th March, 1932, by the appropriate Income-tax Officer. In making it the officer took into account certain sums accruing to the appellant by virtue of his ownership of Kanika from sources admitted to be non-agricultural. The appellant in due course appealed to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax against this assessment upon the ground (among others) that all income which accrued to him by virtue of the ownership of Kanika was exempted from liability to income-tax by virtue of a Treaty engagement, Kaoolnama, made on the 22nd November, 1803, by a predecessor in title to Kanika with the Commissioners of the East India Company for the Soobah of Cuttack. On the 13th October, 1932, the Assistant Commissioner rejecte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....th that of the respondent, and dismissed the appellant's application with costs. The appellant obtained special leave to appeal from this order, and has in accordance therewith appealed to His Majesty in Council. The appellant claims that the said question ought to be answered in the affirmative, and that it should be declared that he is exempt from liability to income-tax in respect of the non-agricultural income derived by him, from Kanika. The statement sets out the history of the relationship of the East India Company after its occupation of Orissa with 23 feudal chieftains who owned land then forming part of the Rajwaras of Orissa. One of these feudal chieftains was the then owner of Kanika, through whom the appellant's title ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the description of those specified in the preceding clause, a settlement shall be concluded, as soon as circumstances may admit, for the revenue of those mohauls on the principle on which a settlement has been concluded with the zemindars of the mohauls specified in the preceding clause". (It is admitted that Cunka is identical with Kanika). Paragraph 12 of the statement continues as follows:- "Immediate settlement could not be made of this estate" (i.e., Kanika) "when this Regulation" (i.e., Regulation XII of 1805) was promulgated because at that time the Raja of Kanika had been deprived of his estate, but it was conformably to the provision of Clause 3 of Section 35 that the jama of Killa Kanika (spelt Con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by its terms. It seems plain to their Lordships that the opinion expressed by the respondent in paragraph 14 of the statement that "in the existing circumstances of the estate of Kanika the kaoolnama granted to the holder of Killah Kanika in 1803 is merely of historical interest" is correct, and consequently that the question referred to the High Court for its consideration has only an academic interest, which ever way it may be answered. Counsel on behalf of the respondent stated during the argument of this appeal that, notwithstanding the statement to the contrary in paragraph 14 of the statement, he was willing to assume for the purpose of obtaining an answer to the question referred to the High Court that the kaoolnama of ....