9911796707
TMI Blog1953 (6) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 17,940 to the same Association for the same purpose. The Calcutta Rehabilitation Fund, we understand, was started for the purpose of giving relief to persons affected by the communal riots of 1946 and 1947. After the necessary disbursements had been made for the purposes of the Rehabilitation Fund, the Indian Jute Mills Association found itself left with a surplus of about ₹ 4,00,000. Of that sum we understand a sum of ₹ 12,078 was taken to be the share of the Samnugger Jute Factory Company Limited and a sum of ₹ 10,764 was taken to be the share of the Titaghur Jute Factory Company Limited How these surplus amounts came to be regarded as shares of the contributories is not very clear but the proceedings before the authorities below were all had on the basis that either the amounts contributed by the various members of the Association remained their property or the surplus amounts were returned to them and thus came to belong to them again. It appears further that during the accounting year 1948-49 the Indian Jute Mills Association decided to make a contribution of ₹ 50,000 to the Gandhi National Memorial Fund and framed a scheme of obtaining t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n respect of a sum of ₹ 1,40,910 and the Titaghur Jute Factory Company Limited an exemption in respect of ₹ 1,25,580. The rest of the claim was rejected. The whole question in the reference is whether the assessees were entitled under the proviso to Section 15B(2) of the Act to exemption in respect of the two sums to which the Income-tax Officer refused to extend the privilege. The principal provision is, however, Section 15B(1). The assessees naturally did not accept the assessments and appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. That officer held that the two sums of ₹ 12,078 and ₹ 10,764 had not been, as they could not have been, included in the total income for 1949-50 assessment and, consequently, no question of granting the assessees any exemption in respect of those two sums could possibly arise. He held further that those two sums had not in fact been contributed by the assessees to the Gandhi National Memorial Fund at all, because the money had previously been paid to the Calcutta Rehabilitation Fund and it was to that Fund that they belonged. On further appeal however the Tribunal held in favour of the assessees on both of these questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontributory to the former of the two funds. The question referred to this Court asks whether the two sums contributed towards the Gandhi National Memorial Fund were entitled to exemption in the circumstances of the case . If it were necessary, I should have been prepared to regard that question as wide enough to cover the point regarding the identity of the person who had made the contributions, but, as I have stated, it is possible to dispose of the question without reopening the so-called finding of fact. It appears to me that the view taken by the Tribunal is an extraordinary one. It says that it could not agree with the Department that in order that any sum might be entitled to exemption under Section 15B, it had to be a sum which was includible and included in the assessable income for the year and that a question of exemption could arise only in respect of sums which would otherwise be assessable in the year in question. The Tribunal disposes of the argument on behalf of the Department by saying that the main section itself, by which probably it meant either Section 15B(1) or Section 15B(2), proviso, speaks of any sums . It goes on to add its own commentary on that lan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. The Tribunal, as I have said relies upon the words any sums paid by him . The sums concerned in the present case are sums which were first paid by the two assessees to the Indian Jute Mills Association in the year 1947 presumably out of their income assessable in the relevant assessment year or out of previous savings. Those sums as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner pointed out were not and could not be included in the income assessable for the year 1949-50, because they were no part of the income of the year 1948. The Tribunal seems to think that although th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee than the other, then the more favourable construction should be preferred. All these propositions are unexceptionable as principles of the construction of statutes, but Mr. Mitter like the Tribunal overlooked the opening words of Section 15B. Those words are, as I have already said, The tax shall not be payable by an assessee, etc . It follows that if the exemption is to be asked for in respect of any sum that must be a sum about which it is possible to say that the tax shall not be payable upon it which can be possible only if it is a part of the income of the year and is liable to tax. The two sums in the present case were sums which were parts of the assessees' income of the year 1947 or of years even prior thereto. No one was asking them to pay tax on those sums in the 1949-50 assessment and that being so, there was no occasion for claiming or granting any exemption in respect of those sums, although they might be any sums , if those two words are taken in their broad general sense. It is clear from what I have so far said that any sums must be sums assessable in their nature, being parts of the assessable income of the relative accounting year and sums bro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
