9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (11) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... els of India Ltd and the Northern India Caterers Ltd. and he included the gross dividends thereof for the year 1953-54 and the net dividends thereof for the year 1934-55 in the total income of the assessee. The particulars of these shares are as under: Year Name of shareholders Gross Dividend 1953-54 Rs. 1. Smt I. D. Oberoi, wife of the assessee (a) 15,886 shares of Associated Hotels (I) Ltd. ... 3,974.00 (b) 30 shares of Northern India Caterers Ltd. ... 15,273.00 2. Mr. T. R. Oberoi, son of the assessee : (a) 50 shares of Northern India Caterers Ltd. ... 25,454.00 (b) 6,823 shares of Associated Hotels (I) Ltd ... 1,706.00 3. Mr. P.R.S. Oberoi, son of the assessee : (a) Northern India Caterers Ltd. (20 shares) ... 10,182.00 ------------------------- Rs. 56,86.00 -------------------------- Year Name of shareholders Not Dividend 1954-55 Rs. Smt. I. D. Oberoi ... 15,886 of Assooiated Hotels of India Ltd. ... 3,177.00 30 shares of Northern India Caterers Ltd. 10,500.00 Sri T. R. Oberoi ... 50 shares of Northern India Caterers Ltd. ... 17,500.00 6,823 shares of Associated Hotels of India Ltd. ... 1,365.00 Sri P.R.S. Oberoi ... 20 shares of Northern India Cater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ividend declared by the Northern India Caterers Ltd. The assessee also contended that the finality of findings of the Income-tax Investigation Commission was confined to the proceedings for particular assessment years under the provisions of section 8(2) of the Income-tax Investigation Commission Act. The assessee contended further that assuming that the shares in question were acquired out of the assessee's secreted profits in 1943 as found by the Commission, Mrs. Oberoi and the two sons were the registered holders of these shares and the dividend income, therefore, could only be in the hands of these registered holders. The Tribunal has considered the Supreme Court's judgment in Howrah Trading Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner, of Income-tax and has observed that as the companies (that is, the Associated Hotels of India Ltd., and the Northern India Caterers Ltd.) could have paid dividends, only to the registered shareholders, in the present case the wife and the two sons could only be on these dividends. The Tribunal has also observed: "Further, the finding of the Commission relates only to the shares of the Associated Hotels of India Ltd. while the bulk of the dividend income are from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e interpretation that the income from dividend is to be regarded as the income only of the registered holder and not of the real owner of the shares. The Supreme Court has held in this case that where shares acquired with the funds of a Hindu undivided family were held in the name of a karta, the Hindu undivided family could be assessed to tax tinder the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on the dividends from those shares. It seems, therefore, that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Howrah Trading Co. Ltd. is of no assistance in answering the question framed in this reference. Mr. Debi Pal, learned counsel for the assessee, has urged before us that, in any event, the Tribunal has found that the wife and the two sons of the assessee were not the assessee's benamidars at all but were the real owners of the shares. The Tribunal has based its conclusion, says Mr. Debi Pal, on the following grounds : 1. The shares which the Income-tax Investigation Commission had considered were the shares of the Associated Hotels of India Ltd., but the bulk of the dividend included in the assessee's income, in the instant case, was dividend declared by the Northern India Caterers Ltd. 2. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be tackled from different standpoints. All that section 66(1) requires is that the question of law which is referred to the court for decision and which the court is to decide must be the question which was in issue before the Tribunal. Where the question itself was under issue, there is no further limitation imposed by the section that the reference should be limited to those aspects of the question which had been argued before the Tribunal. It will be an over-refinement of the position to hold that each aspect of a question is itself a distinct question for the purpose of section 66(1) of the Act." The Supreme Court reiterated these principles in one of its recent decisions in Bhanji Bagawandas v. Commissioner of Income-tax. In the present reference, the question before the Tribunal was whether dividends arising out of shares acquired out of the assessee's secreted profits, but registered in the names of the assessee's wife and his two sons were to be assessed as the assessee's income. Within the framework of this question it is open to this court to consider all the different legal approaches to it from different standpoints. Bearing these principles in mind, we have to e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the party in whose name it was purchased to prove that he was solely entitled to the legal and beneficial interest in such purchased estate. In this judgment the Patna High Court has also referred to its earlier decision in Hazaribagh Mica Mining Co. Ltd. v. Ashalata Kapoor, on which Mr. Debi Pal has relied. In the earlier judgment also, the Patna High Court said: " ........ In the English law, a gift to a wife is presumed where money belonging to the husband is deposited at a bank in the name of a wife, or where a deposit is made in the joint names of both husband and wife. In India, the English law as to presumption of advancement has not been adopted ...... In the second place, the presumption of resulting trust may also be rebutted by parol or other evidence that the purchaser really wished to benefit those in whose names the conveyance of the legal estate was taken." Our point is that the Tribunal, in this reference, did not make the correct legal approach when it said that " in the absence of any evidence that the shares remained in substance, the property of the appellant, the dividend income could not be included in his total income ". The Tribunal, it appears to us, has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
