9911796707
TMI Blog1941 (2) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and also attended a meeting of the Indian Iron and Steel Company's share-holders which was held on or about April 19th, 1937. He attended that meeting to represent the interest of his client. Before the meeting he had managed to come to an arrangement on behalf of his client with Messrs. Martin & Co., which partly met his client's objections. At the meeting which he attended under a proxy from Mr. Khandelwala, Mr. Sen made a speech. The minutes of the meeting recorded as follows:- "Mr. Susil Sen, on behalf of Mr. Khandelwala, said that the position so far as Mr. Khandelwala was concerned had been seriously misapprehended. It was not their purpose to obstruct the launching of the scheme but to safeguard the interest of the shareholders as far as possible in that scheme. In this respect he referred to the attitude of the managing agents, who had shown the greatest courtesy and spirit of consideration in hearing the objections of those whom Mr. Sen represented and endeavouring to remove many of the apprehensions and objections which they had brought to the notice of the Chairman and the managing agents. He said he was in a position to state that after meeting the Cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Messrs. Mugniram Bangor must have profited accordingly. On May 6th, 1937, a cheque for ₹ 10,000 made out in favour of Mr. Sen was sent to him by Messrs. Mugniram Bangor & Co. Mr. Sen credited that to his account. It appears from the books of Messrs. Mugniram Bangor & Co. that on June 21st, they received from Messrs. Place Siddons & Gough a cheque for ₹ 10,000 which they credited in their accounts opposite the payment they had made to Mr. Sen. Mr. Sen contends that that sum of ₹ 10,000 received from him was in the nature of a non-recurring casual payment made to him which does not fall to be assessed under the provisions of the income-tax law. It should be made clear at this stage that Mr. Sen attended the meeting acting as the legal representative of Mr. Khandelwala who paid him his charges. Mr. Sen was apparently at no material time during this period of April and May, 1937, acting as the legal adviser or representative of Messrs. Mugniram Bangor or Messrs. Place Siddons & Gough although it does appear that at some time he had been the legal adviser to Messrs. Mugniram Bangor. The Section of the Income Tax Act which deals with taxable income is section 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct for him in any way in this matter so as to earn this or any part of this sum as my fees. My Costs were paid by my client. It was in the circumstances a pure windfall and nothing else." Why was the ₹ 10,000 paid to Mr. Sen by Messrs. Mugniram Bangor & Co. and/or Messrs. Place Siddons & Gough? Mr. Sen was acting for and rendered good service, I have no doubt, to Mr. Khandelwala who paid him for them. At the same time and I have no doubt without any dereliction from his duty to Mr. Khandelwala, Mr. Sen incidentally and without being employed to do so, did a very good turn to Messrs. Bangor and Messrs. Place Siddons and Gough, as a result of which they profited considerably. Commercial men rarely pay money without good reason and generally do so in return for property, goods, services or help. It is impossible for me to believe that but for Mr. Sen's help to them in smoothing out the shareholders' difficulties and his advocacy of the claim of Indian share-holders, in both of which things he was acting as Mr. Khandelwala's lawyer and Advocate, the payers would have made that payment of ₹ 10,000. The question is-notwithstanding that the ₹ 10,000 wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioners and strangers, who appeared to have given for diverse reasons-personal regard and esteem for a zealous and popular vicar, recognition of good work and long service, and the like. It was held that those Easter offerings were taxable as coming within the Income-tax Act of 1842, Section 146, Sch. E. rr. 1-4. Lord Loreburn, L.C., in his speech in the House of Lords said: "In my opinion, where a sum of money is given to an incumbent substantially in respect of his services as incumbent, it accrues to him by reason of his office. Here the sum of money was given in respect of those services. Had it been a gift of an exceptional kind such as a testimonial, or a contribution for a specific purpose, as to provide for a holiday, or a subscription peculiarly due to the personal qualities of the particular clergyman, it might not have been a voluntary payment for services, but a mere present." The whole of the £56 was held to be taxable although some of the contributions of which it was composed were made by nonconformists and strangers, who did not in the ordinary way receive the benefit of the vicar's services. I mention that because it has been pointed out that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at fell to be considered in most of the cases which have been cited before us. I, however will assume that on the facts the cases of Seymour v. Reed [1927] 1927 A.C. 554; 96 L.J.K.B. 839; 11 Tax Cas. 625 and Stedeford v. Beloe [1932] 1932 A.C. 388; 101 L.J.K.B. 268; 16 Tax Cas. 505 would have been decided in the same way had the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922 been applicable to them. I desire to call attention to this, that in both those cases as also in the case of The Commissioner of Income-tax, Burma v. R. Johnstone [1934] I.L.R. 12 Rang. 477; 2 I.T.R. 390 the sum which it was sought to tax had been received in appreciation of the recipient's services generally, and it was not suggested that it could be attributed to any particular activity by the recipient in the course of his profession or employment. This feature in the facts of those cases seems to me to be of considerable importance. Indeed, I very much doubt if the case of Seymour v. Reed* would be applicable to a professional cricketer who had received a sum of money made up of contributions collected from the spectators at the close of an exceptionally meritorious innings. In the case before us it is, to my mind, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
