9911796707
TMI Blog1960 (3) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant in circumstances stated below falls within paragraph 15(1)(i) of the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Order) and is therefore exempt from income-tax. The appellant was receiving from the Morvi State since 1922 an allowance called Jiwai (maintenance allowance). By a resolution dated September 26, 1947, passed by His Highness Lukhdhirji of Morvi, the husband of the appellant, it was resolved that a sum of Rs. 5,000 per month be paid to the appellant and provision be made for the amount by the Treasury Office in the Budget in the same manner as before. On January 21, 1948, His Highness Lukhdhirji abdicated and his son His Highness Mahendra Sinhji succeeded to the rulership. The covenant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in our Akhan Saubhagvanta Maharani Shri Vijay Kunvar of Rangpur." On March 20, 1948, the State of Morvi became a part of the Saurashtra Union. The Government of Saurashtra refused to continue the maintenance allowance or to recognise the grant of the village Mota Dahisara to the appellant. She their made certain representations and after some conferences and some discussion a copy of the order of the Political Department was sent to the appellant in which it was stated that the village would be resumed and an amount calculated on the basis of average revenue of the village for 3 years would be paid to her as cash allowance for lifetime. To this the appellant took objection and her son the Maharaja of Morvi also wrote a letter to the Raj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e village Mota Dahisara would be resumed and in lieu thereof a cash annuity of Rs. 35,807 would be paid. The appellant was also granted Jiwai as Rajmata of Rs. 24,193 per annum and thus a sum of Rs. 60,000 per annum, i. e., Rs. 5,000 per mensem, was continued to be paid to the appellant. On June 19, 1950, the grant of the village was cancelled. The Income-tax Officer held the whole of Rs. 60,000 to be liable to income-tax because in his view the appellant received that sum in exchange for two assets---right to the old maintenance allowance and the right to enjoy income from the village during her lifetime. On appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the amount of Rs. 35,807 was held to be liable to tax and not the sum of Rs. 24,193. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950 ?" The High Court held that Rs. 35,807 and Rs. 24,193 were two distinct heads of cash annuities, the former in lieu of village Mota Dahisara and the latter by way of Jiwai, i. e., maintenance. It was of the opinion that the appellant was granted Jiwai (maintenance) of Rs. 5,000 per month by her husband as from September, 1947. It also held that the grant of the village was not by way of maintenance. After taking into consideration the several documents, that is, the grant the letter of the appellant's son dated March 23, 1949, to the Rajpramukh of Saurashtra, the letter dated November 19, 1949, of the appellant's husband to Mr. Buch and the resolution of the Government dated March 30, 1950, the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted, was fortified by the letter of the appellant's husband dated November 19, 1949, where His Highness stated that the appellant's 'Abru' (prestige) would go if she were to lose the village. Reference in this connection was also made to the appellant's letter dated May 26, 1949, wherein she insisted that the village should not be taken away from her as this would be unreasonable, arbitrary and contrary to the spirit of the covenant. In our opinion the contention of the appellant is well founded. The Tribunal has found after going into all the documents including the document containing the words "to maintain her status and dignity" and the letter of the appellant's husband to Mr. Buch which mentioned the word "Abru" that the grant of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al and it reversed the findings of the Tribunal and answered the question in a manner suggestive of an appellate rather than advisory jurisdiction. In our opinion the High Court could not go behind the findings of the Tribunal. Even on the question as reformulated what the High Court had to decide was whether on the facts found the sum of Rs. 35,807 granted to the appellant was maintenance within paragraph 15(1)(i) of the Order. The Tribunal had found that the appellant had a maintenance allowance since 1922 and the grant of the village was also by way of maintenance. On these findings the answer to the question clearly was that the sum of Rs. 35,807 was maintenance falling within the paragraph abovementioned. Counsel for the respondent t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
