9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (4) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... UDGMENT ALI C.J.-These two references have been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (Camp Srinagar), and arises in the following circumstances. Reference No. 3 of 1972 relates to the assessment of Maharajkumar Vikramaditya Singh, the minor son of Dr. Karan Singh. Reference No. 6 of 1972 relates to the assessment of the income of Maharani Yashorajya Lakshmi, wife of Dr. Karan Singh. Both the assessees are individuals having their separate income from properties and other sources and their incomes have been assessed separate from that of Dr. Karan Singh. The assessment which is the subject-matter of the two references pertained to the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, for which the accounting years ended on M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g this order the Tribunal gave the following findings in both the cases : "(1) That the expenditure was incurred. (2) That the expenditure was incurred for collection. (3) That the expenditure was incurred not by the assessee herself but by her husband, who is a separate assessee. (In other words the Tribunal found that in the case of the assessee, Maharajkumar Vikramaditya Singh, the expenditure was incurred not by the assessee himself, but by his father, who is a separate assessee). The department then filed an application before the Tribunal for making a reference to this court and hence the following point of law has been referred to this court for decision : In the case of Maharaj Kumar : " Whether, on the facts and in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable one and the strict rule of interpretation would apply only where the provision is vague or ambiguous. This principle would not apply to a case where the provision is absolutely clear and unambiguous and admits of no other interpretation than the one which goes against the assessee. Similarly, it is the duty of the courts to interpret the provisions of any statute---a fiscal statute being no exception - in such a way as to advance the object of the Act and to achieve the object which the legislature has in view. We are fortified in our view by a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Kripashankar Dayashanker Worah wherein their Lordships observed as follows: "It is true that a taxing provision must rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... profits of which are chargeable to income-tax, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head ' Income from house property'." Section 22 clearly provides that it would apply to cases where the assessee is the owner of the property concerned and any income from such property would be deemed to be income from house property as mentioned in section 24(1). It is true that clause (viii) of section 24(1) of the Act does not mention that the sums spent to collect the rent should be spent by the assessee himself, but since these are deductions claimed by a person who is the owner of the property on the basis that he has incurred certain expenses for collecting rent of that property, he is entitled to a deduction thereof. Indeed if an owner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact arrived at by the Tribunal in both the cases, it is clear that the money was not spent by the assessee on his or her behalf, but it was spent by Dr. Karan Singh who was a separate assessee. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the expenses flowed from the pocket of the assessees but were incurred gratuitously by Dr. Karan Singh himself. It was, however, submitted by Mr. Dhawan that the Income-tax Act has made a specific provision for amounts to be paid by the assessee, where the intention is that the assessee should incur the expenditure personally. Our attention was drawn to sections 16 and 19 of the Act. Section 16 deals with income from salaries and refers to certain statutory deductions which are allowed on the actual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arges on account of land revenue or any other tax and are allowed to be deducted from the total income of the assessee. For these reasons we are satisfied that the interpretation put by the learned Tribunal on section 24(1)(viii) was legally erroneous and cannot be accepted. We, therefore, think that in both the cases since the assessees did not spend the amount themselves nor was the amount spent on their behalf through their agents but the expenses were incurred by a different assessee, the assessees are not entitled to claim deduction under the aforesaid section. For these reasons we answer the references in the negative. The Tribunal shall now proceed to pass orders in accordance with our judgment. In the peculiar circumstances of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
