9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (12) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icultural as well as non-agricultural receipts and disbursements. The agricultural income was found by the Income-tax Officer to be about ₹ 5,00,000 and the non-agricultural income about ₹ 91,000. During the financial year 1952-53 the petitioner-assessee contributed ₹ 10,000 as a donation to the Bhadrak College, an institution approved under section 15B of the Indian Income-tax Act. In the cash book referred to above, the said sum of ₹ 10,000 was simply debited without stating whether it came out of the agricultural or non- agricultural income. Before the Income-tax authorities, the petitioner-assessee claimed that he was entitled to a rebate on the said sum of ₹ 10,000 under section 15B. As there was no proof that the contribution was made solely from and out of the non-agricultural income, the Income-tax Department allowed only a rebate of ₹ 1,754 taking the proportion between the agricultural and non-agricultural income. The Appellate Tribunal in regard to the above matter observed as follows: "What was required was the proof that the amount of ₹ 10,000 was paid out of the taxable income. The assessee has no record to show that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich section 15B is one, shall be included in computing the total income of an assessee, although such inclusion will be only for purposes of rate and for purposes of super-tax. I am stating the effect of section 16(1)(a) broadly, because so far as super-tax is concerned there is a further exemption in favour of sums covered by section 15A, but the broad point to notice is that the sums concerned are all sums which are assessable to tax and must be brought into the computation for the purpose of determining the assessable income, although in levying tax after the rate has been determined an exemption from income-tax but not from super-tax will be granted in respect of them. There can be no question whatsoever of bringing any sum into the computation or granting any exemption in respect of it, if it is not a part of the income assessable for the year at all. Indeed, no question could arise of charging super-tax on it, which, under the second proviso to section 15B(1) itself, must be done in respect of sums exempted from income-tax under the section." In this case, the two sums of ₹ 12,078 and ₹ 10,764 in respect of which exemption was claimed were not sums forming p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he purposes of deriving such agricultural income 'in section 6(i) of the Act and that the assessee was entitled to claim the full depreciation allowance for the buildings." In the course of the judgment, Manohar Lall, J., observed: "...the assessee has constructed a building for the benefit of the land. It is immaterial to consider whether the land also produces non-agricultural income, and it is also immaterial to consider that upon the plain construction of the provisions of section 6(i) the assessee might be getting a doubt advantage not under the Agricultural Income-tax Act but when he is being assessed on his non- agricultural income under some other statute." In the case of Rajendra Narayan Bhanja Deo v. Commissioner of Income-tax A.I.R. 1929 Pat. 449 a Full Bench of the Patna High Court consisting of five Judges held: "It is open to the Income-tax authorities to hold that a particular building on account of its size or situation is not a building which the receiver of rent or revenue does require by reason of his connexion with the land as a dwelling house, and in that case it would be open to them to assess the income from the entire building, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egardless of the consequences; and if there is ambiguity, to construe the provision in favour of the subject and this even if it results in his obtaining a 'double advantage'. That is how all fiscal enactments are to be construed. There is no reason why the assessee should not get a double advantage if the Act can be so construed. If the language is plain, there is nothing more to be said. If it is ambiguous, then, being a fiscal enactment, it must be so construed because that is the construction which most favours the subject." They also observed: "Agricultural income is exempt under section 4(3)(viii). But say a man's business is partly agricultural and partly commercial, the commercial end of it being mixed up with the agricultural. Say he runs one office and one staff to supervise both sections. Would he have to apportion the office expenses which are permissible as a good deduction under section 10(2)(xii) between the two kinds? We can hardly think that that would be the case." 9. Applying the principles deducible from these decisions, I am of opinion that the Income-tax Department is not entitled to apportion the contribution to charity between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
