Dismissed

Russa H. Mehta Trust, Bombay v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City I

Supreme Court12 Nov 19651965 INSC 248 · [1966] 2 S.C.R. 5791965 INSC 248

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A trust resident in British India received dividends at Baroda from shares in an investment company. It claimed rebate under paragraph 6 of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949 read with paragraph 4 and section 14(2)(c). The Supreme Court held paragraph 4's concessions did not extend to British India residents and dismissed the appeals.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed with costs.

What the court decided

Russa H. Mehta Trust, Bombay versus Commissioner of… — Income Tax | Supreme Court (1966)

¶1

579

¶2

¶3

RUSSA H. MEHTA TRUST, BOMBAY

•

•

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY CITY I November 12, 1965

¶9

[K. SUBBA RAo, J. C. SHAH ANDS. M. S!KRI, JJ.J

¶10

Merged States (Taxation Concession) Order, 1949 Paragraph 4-- Assessee resident in former British India-Income accruing in fornier Indian State-If entitled to rebate.

¶11

•

¶12

•

¶13

By the Taxation Laws (Extension to Merged States and Amendment) Act of 1949 the Income-tax Act. 1922 was applied to the territories of c the former Indian States which were merged with the former British Indian Provinces under tho States Merger (Governors' Provinces) Order. 1949. By such application, the income received, accrued or arisen or deemed to be rece.ived, accrued or arisen to any person resident within the territory of the merged State became chargeable to income-tax. With a view to avoid hardship to residents of former Indian States, caused by the sudden application of the high rates of taxation, the Central D Government issued the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order of 1949 unde,r s. 60A of the Income-tax Act. Under Paragraphs 6 and 6A of this Order income of residents of the merged States became charageable to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, but the income of any previous year ending after 3 lst March 1948 was to continue to get for a limited period the benefit of lower rates of tax operative under the law in force in the States before merger. This concession was to apply, under para~ graph 4 of the Order, only to so much of the income, profits and aios E included in the total income of an assessee as would, had he been resident · in the taxable territorie•, have been exempt under s. 14(2) (c) of tbe Income-tax Act, if ,the Taxation Laws Etension Act had not bees passed, that is, in respect of income arising or accuring to hint .within the territory of the merged State.

¶14

In the Calendar years 1948 and 1949, the assessee, who was resident and ordinarily resident within British India in 1948, received oertain F sums as dividend in the State of Baroda which was one of the merged States. The Income-tax Officer upheld its claim that the dividend income -had accrued or arisen in the Baroda State and as the income was not brought into British India, it was exempt from liablility to tax under s. 14(2) (c) of the Income-tax Act. The Appellate Tribunal held that the dividend income arose in Baroda State, but by reason of the defi· nition of "taxable territories" in s. 2(14A) of the Income-tax Act, the income attracted liability to tax and did not qualify for the rebate equal G to the difference between the British Indian rate and the Baroda State rate in respect of the dividend income, under paragraph 6 of the Taxation Concessions Order. The High Court also, on a reference, held that the assessee was not entitled to the rebate.

¶15

•

¶16

In appeal to this Coart, the assessee contended that by the application of the Taxation Laws Extension Act. all residents in the taxable territory become liable to pay tax at the Indian rates, but with a view H to maintain the status quo ante, it was intended by the Taxation Concessions Order, to restore the State rates of taxation to residents in the former Indian States, and also to continue the exemption in respect of the income of the former British India res:dents, arising or accruing

•

580

(1966] 2 S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶21

¶22

in the territory of the merged States within the limits prescribed by s. 14(2)(c).

¶23

¶24

•

¶25

HELD : In terms the concession is not given to residents of the territories of British India, and the context does not warrant an implication to the contrary. [587 C-Dl

¶26

There is nothing in paragraph 4 of the Concessions Order which seeks to grant exemption from liability to tax in respect of income which prior to merger of the States was not liable to tax by virtue of s. 14(2) (c), but has, since the application of the Income-tax Act, become so liable. The paragraph applies. to income which would, if the Taxation Laws Extension Act had not been passed, have been regarded as accruing or arising in an Indian State, and the assessee would in respect of that income, had he been a resident of the taxable territory before merger, have been exempt under s. 14(2)(c). It is true that by this interpretation of paragraph 4 British Indian resident• are denied the benefit of the exemption under s. 14(2) (c) in respect of income arising or accruing in the territories of the merged State. But the use of the expression "had he been resident in the taxable territories" implies that the benefit is not to enure to persons who were before the merger entitled to the exemption under s. 14(2) (c). [587 A-B, DJ

¶27

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 589 to 590 of 1964.

Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 12, 13, 1961 of the Bombay High Court in Income-tall Reference No. 56 of 1956.

¶32

K. N. Rajagopal Sastri, J. B. Dadachanjl, for the appellants.

¶33

¶34

A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, R. Ganapathy Iyer, R. H. Dhebar and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.

¶35

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶36

. Shah, J. The appellant is a private trust, and was within the meaning of s. 4A and 4B of the Income-tax Act, 1922 resident F and ordinarily resident within British India in 1948. The appellant held 1000 shares in an investment company styled Home Mehta and Sons Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the Company') which carried on the business of investing in shares in companies registered in British India and in the former Indian States. Dividends from the British Indian companies were received by the Company G at its registered office at Bombay, and dividends from the Indian States' companies were received by the Company at its registered office at Billimora in the State of Baroda.

¶37

¶38

In the calendar years 1948 and 1949 the appellant received at Billimora Rs. 65,000 and Rs. 2, 10,000 respectively as dividend in respect of shares held by it in the Company. The 2nd Income-tax Officer, A-I Ward, Bombay, upheld the claim of the appellant that its dividend incqme received from the Company

¶39

¶40

•

¶41

MEHTA TRUST V. C.I.T. (Shah, J.)

581

•

A at Billimora had accrued or arisen in the Baroda State and as the income was not brought into British India, it was exempt from liability to tax by virtue of s. 14 ( 2 )( c) of the Income-tax Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay held that the income accrued or arose to the appellant in Bombay where the dividend was declared, and was on that account liable to be assessed under

¶46

B the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Commissioner accordingly directed the Income-tax Officer to pass orders imposing tax on the dividend income received by the appellant from the Company. On appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the dividend income accrued or arose at Billimora and not at Bombay, but by reason of the definition of "taxable territories" the income

¶47

C which accrued at Baroda attracted liability to tax under the Income-tax Act and did not qualify for rebate under paragraph 6 of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949.

¶48

The following questions were referred by the Tribunal under '· 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to the High Court D of Bombay for its opinion :

¶49

" ( 1) Whether on the above facts and circumstances of the case the assessee is entitled to rebate equal to the difference between the British Indian rate and Baroda State rate in respect of the dividend income ?

¶50

¶51

(2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the dividend income accrued or arose to the assessee at Bombay ?"

¶52

The High Court held, following its earlier judgment in Mrs. Kusumben D. Mahadevia, Bombay v. The Commissioner of F Income-tax, Bombay City, Bombay(') that the Merged State~ (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949 did not apply to the income of a resident assessee and therefore the first question must be answered in the negative. The High Court declined to answer the second question. With special leave granted by this Court, the G appellant has appealed to this Court.

¶53

Income received by the Company from its transactions in the Indian States was retained at its office in Billimora and dividend declared out of that income was paid to the appellant at the registered office in the State of Baroda. This dividend it is common ground was not brought into British India. To appreciate H the claim that the income qualifies for rebate under paragraph 6 of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949, the

¶54

(I) Income-tax Ref. No. 28 of 1955 decided on February 20, 1956 (unreported). L3Sup. C.l./66-7

¶55

[1966] 2 S.C.R.

¶56

582

¶57

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶58

relevant statutory developments in tax laws to effectuate the merger of the former Indian States since August 15, 1947 may be briefly set out. Under s. 14(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act, added by Act 23 of 1941 and amended by Act 22 of 1947, it was enacted that :

¶59

"The tax shall not be payable by an assessee in respect of any income, profits or gains accruing or arising to him within an Indian State unless such income, profits or gains are received or deemed to be received in or are brought into British India in the previous year by or on behalf of the assessee, or are assessable under section l 2B or Section 42."

¶60

By paragraph 3 of the States' Merger (Governors' Provinces) Order, 1949, it was provided that the States specified in Sch. II shall, as from August 1, 1949, be administered in all respects as if they formed part of the Provinces specified in the Schedule, and by paragraph 4 all the laws in force in the merged States or in any part thereof immediately before August 1, 1949, were to continue in force until repealed, modified or amended by a competent Legislature or other competent authority. The State of Baroda was one of the States specified in the Schedule and it was to be administered as if it formed part of the Province of Bombay. The Indian Income-tax Act was applied to the merged States by s. 3 of the Taxation Laws (Extension to Merged States and Amendment) Act 67 of 1949 with retrospective effect from April 1, 1949, and by s. 7 corresponding laws relating to income-tax in the merged States were repealed. It was provided that if in1mediately before the 26th day of August, 1949, there was in force in any of the merged States any law relating to income-tax, supertax or business profits tax, that law shall cease to have effect except for the purposes of the levy, assessment and. collection of income-tax and super-tax in respect of any period not included in the previous year for the purposes of assessment under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as extended to that State by s. 3, or, as the case may be, the levy, assessment and collection of business profits tax for any chargeable accounting period ending on or before the 31st day of March, 1948, and for any purposes coonected with such levy, assesssment or collection. By the apPlication of Act 67 of 1949, and the repeal of laws corresponding to those applied to the merged States by s. 3, residents in former British India and in the merged States were sought to be treated equally. But the result was a sudden imposition of high rates of taxation under the Indian Income-tax Act read with the appro-

• c

MEHTA TRUST V. C.l.T. (Shah, J.)

583

•

•

A priate Finance Acts upon the residents of the merged States. With a view to cushion the impact, the Central Government in exercise of the· powers conferred by s. 60A of the Indian Income-tax Act granted certain exemptions from and reductions in the rates of tax and made certain other modifications in the tax structure in its application to the merged States. By paragraph 3 (i) of the B Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949 the expression "Act" was defined as meaning the Taxation Laws (Extension to Merged States and Amendment) Act 67 of 1949. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 6A of the Order as amended or added by the notification dated March 11, 1949, provided :

¶75

¶76

"The provisions of paragraphs 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 of this Order shall apply to only so much of the income, profits and gains included in the total income of an assessee as would, bad be been resident in British India have been exempt under clause ( c) of subl!eetion (2) of section 14 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, if the Act had not been passed."

¶77

¶78

"( 1) The income, profits and gains of an) previous year ending after the 3 lst day of March, I 948, which is a previous year-

( i) for tlle merged State assessment year 1948-49, or

¶83

(ii) for the merged State assessment year 1949-50, shall be assessed under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. if, and only if, such income, profits and gains have not, before the 1st day of August. 1949, been assessed under the State law.

¶84

(2) Where the income, profits and gains referred to in sub-paragraph ( 1) have not been assessed under the State law, they shal! be assessed under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the tax payable thereon shall be determined as hereunder-

¶85

(i) the tax on the amount of such income, profits and gains included in the total income shall be computed at the Indian rate of tax;

¶86

¶87

" (ii) the amount of such income, profits and gains shall be com!mted under the State law and th~ tax thereon computed at the merged S•ate nte of tax;

¶88

[1966] 2 S.C.R.

¶89

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶90

584

¶91

¶92

(iii) the amount, if any, by which the tax computed under clause (i) exceeds the tax computed under clause (ii) shall be allowed as rebate from the first mentioned tax, and the amount of the first mentioned tax as so reduced shall be the tax payable.

¶93

¶94

(3) For the purposes of this paragraph-

¶95

( a) the merged State assessment year 1948-49 means the assessment year which commences on any date between the 1st April, 1948, and the 31st December, 1948, both dates inclusive; and

¶96

(b) the merged State assessment year 1949-50 means the assessment year which commences on any date between the 2nd January, 1949, and the 31st July, 1949, both dates inclusive."

¶97

"( 1) The income, profits and gains of any previous year ending after the 31st day of March, 1948, which does not fall within paragraph 5 of this Order or of any previous year commencing after the previous year referred to in the said paragraph shall be assessed under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, but the tax payable on so much of the income as pertains to the period ending before the 1st day of August, 1949, shall be determined as herennder-

¶98

(i) the _tax on so much of such income included in the total income shall be computed (a) at the Indian rate of tax and (b) at the rates of tax in force in the merged State immediately before the 1st day of August, 1949;

¶99

"(ii) the amount by which the tax computed under sub-clause (a) of clause ( i) exceeds the tax computed under sub-clause (b) of clause (i) shall be allowed as rebate from the first mentioned tax, and the amount of the first mentioned tax as so reduced shall be the tax payable.

¶100

( 2) Where any previous year falls partly before and partly on or after the 1st day of August, 1949, the income, profits and gains pertaining to the period falling before the said date shall, unless the Income-tax Officer, having regard to any special circumstanGes, otherwise

....

, v • • t

¶108

H '

¶109

" l' l•

¶110

MEHTA TRUST V. C.I.T. (Shah, J.)

585

•

....

•

directs with the approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, be in the proportion which the period before the said date bears to the whole previous year."

¶116

¶117

6A. "The income, profits and gains of any previous year, referred to in paragraph 5 or 6 of this Order, which accrue or arise without the taxable territories to a person who is resident but who would not be resident in the taxable territories if the Act had not been passed, shall be charged to tax in the same manner and to the same extent as specified in the said paragraph 5 or 6, as the case may be."

¶118

¶119

¶120

By the application of the Income-tax Act, 1922, to the territories of the merged States, income received, accrued or arisen or deemed to be received, accrued or arisen to any person resident within the territory of the merged States became chargeable to tax under that Act. With a view to avoid hardship caused by the sudden D application of high rates of taxation, the Central Government exercised its powers under s. 60A of the Indian Income-tax Act and modified the tax levy so as to give certain exemptions and benefits to residents in the areas of the former Indian States. By paragraph 6 of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949, in respect of the income of any previous year ending with E March 31, 1948 which accrued or arose to persons who were residents in the territories of the merged States, benefit of the same rate of income-tax to which it was subject in the merged State was granted by providing that the difference between tax computed at the Indian rate and the State rate shall be allowed F as rebate. In respect of income of residents in the merged States arising outside the taxable territories, a similar rebate was to be given (paragraph 6A). The result was that income of residents of the merged States became chargeable to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, but it was to continue to get for a limited period benefit of the lower rates of tax operacive under the Jaw in force G in the States before merger. This concession or benefit was to apply by the express provisions contained in paragraph 4 only to so much of the income, profits and gains included in the total income of an assessee as would, had he been resident in the taxable territories, have been exempt under cl. ( c) of sub-s. (2) of s. 14 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, if the Act had not H been passed.

¶121

¶122

. Counsel for the appellants claims that paragraph 4 applies to mcome of al! assessees resident within British India as defined

¶123

[1966] 2 S.C.R.

¶124

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶125

586

¶126

' J 'r

¶127

in s. 2(3A) at the relevant time, and not merely to residents in the territories of the merged States. It is contended that by paragraph 4 it was intended not only to give the benefit of the State rate of taxation to residents of the former Indian States which were merged with the Provinces· under the States Merger (Gov· emors' Provinces) Order, 1949, but also to pr~serve the benefit which was conferred by s. 14 ( 2) ( c) of the Income-tax Act to residents of the territories of British India before August 15, 1947, in respect of income arising or accruing to them within the territory of the merged States. It is said that by the application of Act 67 of 1949 all residents in the tinrnble territory became liable to pay tax at Indian rates, but with a view to maintain the staws quo ante, it was intended by the Taxation Concessions ' Order, 1949 to restore the State rates of taxation to residenis in the former Indian States, and also to continue the exemption in respect of the income of the former British Indian residents arising or accruing in the territory of the merged States within the limits prescribed by s. 14 ( 2) ( c). But paragraph 4 of the Taxation Concessions Order, 1949, is not susceptible of any such interpretation. Paragraph 4 of the Order, and ss. 3, 4, 4A, 4B and s. 14 ( 2) ( c) of the Income-tax Act must be read together. The Indian States specified in the Schedule to the States Merger Order on their merger with the Provinces of British India ceased to be separate entitles and became part of British India, and by the application of Act 67 of 1949 the Indian Income-tax Act was applied to the territories comprised within British India. Section 14(2) (c) undoubtedly remained in force even after the merger of the Indian States effected by the States Merger Order, but its operation was restricted. After the merger of the States, income arising or accruing within the territory of such merged State, could not be deemed to be income arising or accruing within an Indian St.ate, for the State had ceased to exist, and the income was for the purpose of s. 4 of the Income-tax Act income arising or accruing to a person resident within the taxable territories. There i' nothing in paragraph 4 of the Concessions Order which seeks to grant exemption from liability to tax in respect of income which prior to merger of the States was not liable to tax by virtue of s. 14(2) (c), but has since the application of the Income-tax Act become so liable.

¶128

The claim that paragraph 4 applies to income of resident' of fonner British India which was exempt from taxation under s. 14(2)(c) is belied by the plain words of the Order. Paragraph 4 does not substantively grant any exemption : it merely d•~signates income to which the provisions of the Order granting

E •

MEHTA TRUST V. C.I.T. (Shah, J.)

587

• '·I

•

A exemption will apply. It applies to income which would, if Act 67 of 1949 had not been passed, have been regarded as accruing or arising in an . Indian State, and the assessee would in respect of that income had he been a resident of the taxable territory before merger, have been exempt under s. 14(2)(c). The use of the expression "had he been a resident" implies that the benefit B is not to enure to persons who were before the merger entitled to the exemption under s. 14(2 )( c).

¶143

The Order provides that paragraphs 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 apply to a slice of income and not to the entire income of an assessee, and by the express terms, it is that slice of the income, as would, had the assessee been resident in the taxable territories, have been C exempt under cl. (c) of sub-s. (2) of s. 14 of the Indian Incometax Act, if the Taxation Laws Act, 1949, had not been passed. In terms the concession is not given to residents of the territories of British India, and the context does not warrant an implication to the contrary.

¶144

•

¶145

D It is true that by this interpretation of paragraph 4, British Indian residents are denied the benefit of the exemption under s. 14(2)(c) in respect of income arising or accruing in the territories of the former merged States. But that denial is the result of merger of the States into British India. The operation of s. 14 ( 2 )( c) had become restdcted by the modification of the E definition of British India. Since that amendment, income accruing or arising after the merger in Indian States outside British India alone would be exempt under s. 14(2) (c). There is nothing in the Concessions Order which suggests that it was intended to ensure continuance of the exemption under s. 14(2)(c) to residents of British India as it was before merger, as if the merger F had not taken place. The use of the expression "had he been resident in the taxable territories" introduces a fiction : it grants ·the benefit of s. 14(2)(c), though on the express terms it is not available, to a person who was not before the merger covered thereby, and in respect of income which would have been, if the Merger Act had not been passed, exempt from taxation in his G hands, if he had been resident in British India. In our view, Cbagla, C.J., was right in observing in Mrs. Kusumben D. Mahadevia's case(') that :

¶146

¶147

"A person resident in a Merged State, whose income accrued to him there, could not possibly claim exemption under Section 14(2)(c). Such an exemption could "only be claimed by a person resident in the taxable territories. In order to give this particular

¶148

¶149

(1) Income-lex Ref. !'<o. 28of1955 decided on February 20, 1956 (unreported).

¶150

• +

¶151

588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1966] 2 S.C.R.
concession to a resident in a merged Statethispara- graphwasenacted, and the particular languagewhich wefindinthis paragraphwasused."	A
Intheviewwehave taken on the first question, itisun- necessary to record an ·answer on the second question.		•
The appeals therefore fail and are dismissed with costs.	B
Appeals dismissed.

¶152

¶153

Russa H. Mehta Trust, Bombay v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Russa H. Mehta Trust, Bombay v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Uttar Pradesh versus Manmohan Das

Bhagwan Das versus the State of Punjab

Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras versus Messrs. Best & Co.

M/S. Gotan Lime Syndicate versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi and Rajasthan.

Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. versus Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Assam versus Nandlal Aggarwal & Anr.