SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1967 Supreme(SC) 120

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.
M/s. Raja Mohan Raja Bahadur, Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Income-tax. U. P., Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 1395 of 1966,
D/- 6-4- 1967.

Advocates:
BISHAN NARAIN, GOVIND SARAN, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.N.SACH, S.P.NAIR, T.V.VISHVANATH IYER

The receipt of Encumbered Estates Bonds in satisfaction of a debt constitutes receipt of income in the year of receipt.

Headnote:

INCOME TAX - Receipt of Encumbered Estates Bonds - Whether receipt of cash during the previous year or during the year of sale - Whether mere receipt of bonds tantamount to receipt of income assessable in the year of receipt.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a Hindu undivided family, received Encumbered Estates Bonds in satisfaction of a debt owed to them. The bonds were issued under the U. P. Encumbered Estates Act 25 of 1934, which provided for the settlement of debts owed by landlords. The appellant appropriated the bonds towards the principal and interest due on the debt. The Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 34 (1) (a) of the Indian Income-tax Act and brought to tax the difference between the face value of the bonds and the amount due as principal as escaped income of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1948-49.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the receipt of the bonds amounted to receipt of cash during the previous year and that the mere receipt of the bonds was tantamount to receipt of income assessable in the year of receipt.

Issues: 1. Whether the receipt of Encumbered Estate Bonds during the previous year 1947-48 amounted to receipt of cash during that previous year and not during the previous year 1948-49 when the Bonds were in fact sold at less than their face value? 2. Whether in the circumstances of the case, the mere receipt of the Encumbered Estate Bonds was tantamount to receipt of come assessable in the year 1948-49?

Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that the receipt of the bonds constituted receipt of income in the year of receipt. The Court held that the bonds were a fresh security that replaced the original liability of the debtor and that they were convertible in terms of money. Therefore, income was received by the appellant when the bonds were received.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.

Judgement

SHAH, J.: The appellant, a Hindu undivided family, carries on the business of money-lending and maintains its accounts on cash basis. The appellant commenced an action in the Civil Court for a decree for recovery of Rs. 2,58,000 due by Nisar Ahmad Khan, Taluqdar of Mohana Estate. The action was carried to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and was ultimately decreed in favour of the appellant. Nisar Ahmad Khan then obtained under the U. P. Encumbered Estates Act 25 of 1934 an order applying the provisions of the Act to him. The special Judge, Sultanpur, passed an order for payment of Rs. 5,00,992 to the appellant. Pursuant to the order the appellant received in 1946 Rs. 1,54,692 from the debtor and for the balance the Government of the United Provinces gave to the appellant Encumbered Estates bonds of the face value of Rs. 3,46,300. The amount received in the year 1946 was appropriated by the appellant towards the principal due. The appellant split up the amount of the face value of the bonds into two sums of Rupees 2,22,097/9/11 and Rs. 1,24,202/6/1, and credited the first amount in the books of account towards the balance of principal and the second amount to an account styled "Interest Accrued" : In submitting the return of his taxable income for the assessment year 1948-49 the appellant did not disclose any receipt of income from interest due on the loans advanced to Nisar Ahmad Khan. The appellant was duly assessed to tax on the income disclosed by him. In October 1948, the appellant sold the Encumbered Estates bonds and realized a total sum of Rs. 3,21,600 and disclosed in the return for the assessment year 1949-50 as interest received during the year of account the difference between the amount realized by sale of the bonds and the amount due as principal. The Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 34 (1) (a) of the Indian Income-tax Act and brought to tax the difference between the face value of the bonds and the amount due as principal as escaped income of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1948-49. The order was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commr. and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal then submitted three questions to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad of which the following were canvassed before us :

2. Whether the receipt of Encumbered Estate Bonds during the previous year 1947-48 amounted to receipt of cash during that previous year and not during the previous year 1948-49 when the Bonds were in fact sold at less than their face value?

3. Whether in the circumstances of the case, the mere receipt of the Encumbered Estate Bonds was tantamount to receipt of come assessable in the year 1948-49?"

The High Court answered the questions in the affirmative. Against the order passed by the High Court, with certificate the appellant has appealed to this Court.

(2) The scheme of the U. P. Encumbered Estates Act 25 of 1934 and the form of the bonds issued in satisfaction of the liability of the debtors may be briefly summarised. Under the U. P. Act a "landlord" may apply to the Collector stating the amount of his debts and requesting that the provisions of the Act be applied to him. The Collector entertains the petition and transfers it to the Special Judge. The landlord then submits a written statement giving the list of his creditors and the list of his assets. Notices are published by the Special Judge and the creditors are called upon to submit their written claims. On the claims for debts secured or unsecured duly proved, simple money decrees are passed in favour of the creditors. The Special Judge then determines the properties belonging to the landlord and prepares a list of the properties and a list of the debts adjudged to be due by the landlord ranking the same in order of priority and then sends the decrees to the Collector for execution. If the amount due by the debtor is less than the instalment value of his proprietary rights in land, the Collec


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top