1984 (5) TMI 28

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or of the estate of his late father, Padam Shree N. N. Mohan, was his income and assessable in his hands as executor of the estate of the deceased ? " The annuity in question was due on account of the annuity deposit scheme mentioned in Chapter XXII-A of the I.T. Act, 1961. The facts stated in the statement of case submitted to this court show that sum of Rs. 1,57,250 was deposited by the late Padam Shree N. N. Mohan which had to be refunded in ten equal instalments of principal and interest under s. 280D of the Act. The sum mentioned in the question referred to this court appears to be one of these instalments. According to the assessee, this sum was not taxable as income in the hands of the executor, but the ITO held that the same w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd, again, in CIT v.S. M. Ebrahim [1982] 134 ITR 599 (Mid)) it was held that it did not make any difference if the receiver was the nominee or the legal heir of the depositor. In both cases, the amount would not be taxable. There is, therefore, a difference between the High Courts, but as this matter has been decided as this court is concerned and we do not find any reason to differ from the same, we would follow the view already expressed in CIT v. O. N. Talwar [1980] 123 ITR 80 (Delhi), aforementioned. For the record we may mention that Mr. Sharma has urged a number of points on behalf of the assessee which need to be reproduced. It was submitted that when deposits were made under the Annuity Deposit Scheme, 1964, same were made ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... may be mentioned that this point was answered by the decision of this court on the footing that the payment made to the depositor included a payment to his representatives. A further submission by Mr. Sharma was that the expression" annuity due " or " annuity paid " as occurring in s. 280D or s. 2(24)(viii) applied only to the case of a depositor receiving the same and if the depositor's nominee or legal representatives receives the same, then it was not a payment to the depositor, but a payment to somebody else. Mr. Sharma also sought to distinguish the Delhi High Court's previous decision in CIT v. O. N. Talwar [1980] 123 ITR 80, on the ground that the case was distinguishable on facts because it was a case involving a karta who ha....