E S OLPADVALA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : This is reference under s. 66(I) of the Indian IT Act, 1922. The assessment year in 1957-1958. The corresponding accounting year is the calendar year 1956. The assessee, E. S. Olpadvala, was the sole proprietor of a business in the manufacture and sale of aerated and mineral water carried on by him under the name and style of Byron & Co. at No,. 5, Chowringhee Place, Calcutta. The premises were owned by the assessee, who transferred it by a deed dated December 30, 1955, to 4 several persons, being his sister, brothers and nephew. The consideration for the transfer was the payment of an annuity of Rs. 6,000 per annum to the assessee's wife The market value of the property is said to have been Rs. 2,30,000 but in the deed to conveyance, for the purposes of stamp duty, the property was valued under s. 25(c) of the Indian Stamp Act at 12 times the annuity recited in the document. I shall discuss the relevant clauses of this document later in this judgment. Before the ITO, the assssee claimed that this annuity was not his income but it belonged to his wife. The ITO held that s. 16(3)(a)(iii) was attracted to this case. The decision of the ITO was supported by the AAC.

(2.) THE Tribunal held that : (I) Where the owner of an estate had exchanged a capital asset for a life annuity, it was an income; (2) in the present case, the assessee, the owner of the house property, transferred the asset to his relations, but freely or as a gift, but in consideration of the vendees' undertaking to pay the annuity to the vendor's wife; (3) instead of receiving the annuity, which he was entitled to receive, he had provided for its being received by his wife as an annuity; (4) the payment of the annuity remained a charge upon the property transferred; (5) but for this transfer, the assessee's wife would not have got the annuity; (6) it was a transfer of an asset indirectly to the wife to enable her to obtain an annuity during the course of her life; and (7) the transaction is hit by the provisions of s. 16(3)(a)(iii), and the ITO was right in his assessment. On these facts, the question of law referred to us is as follows : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the inclusion of the annuity of Rs. 6,000 in the total income of the assessee under the provisions of s. 16(3)(a)(iii) of the Indian IT Act is correct ?" Mr. Sampat Iyengar, learned counsel for the applicant, urged in his opening that there were 4 ingredients of the s. 16(3)(a)(iii) of the IT Act. THEre must be : (1) a transfer, (2) of an asset, (3) by the husband to the wife, directly or indirectly, and (4) income arising therefrom, directly or indirectly. He said that the words of a taxing statute must be rigidly and strictly construed, and relied on a number of well-known authorities for his position. Since learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute any of the points made by Mr. Iyengar in his opening, it is unnecessary for us to deal with them elaborately in this judgment.

(3.) REFERENCE may usefully be made in this connection to the decision of the Judicial Committee in Maharajkumar Gopal Saran Narain Singh vs. CIT (1935) 3 ITR 237(PC). The appellant in this case was the owner of an estate in British India. He had a daughter who was married. By an indenture, dated March 29, 1940, and made between the appellant and a lady who was the appellat's son-in- law's mother, the appellant conveyed the greater portion of his estate to the lady for the valuable consideration therein appearing. The indenture recites, among other facts, that the appellant was the absolute owner of the estate and that for purposes of discharging certain of his debts and of obtaining for himself an adequate income, he had agreed with the lady for the absolute sale and transfer to her of a portion of his estate described in the first schedule in consideration of the lady convenanting to pay the appellant's specified debts and to pay to him a sum of money in cash to meet the expenses of his daughter's marriage and other urgent necessities and further convenanting to pay to him annual sums during his lifetime of Rs. 2.40,000 in the manner therein appearing, such payment being secured by a charge upon the property thereby transferred. By the operative part of the indenture it was witnessed that in pursuance of the said agreement and in consideration of the said sum paid to the appellant and in further consideration of the covenant by the lady for payment to the appellant during his lifetime of the annual sum of Rs. 2,40,000 by six installments, and also in consideration of the covenant to pay and indemnify the appellant in respect of the said debts the appellant assigned the hereditaments therein described "unto" the lady absolutely. The indenture contained a convenant by the lady with the appellant for payment to him during his lifetime, of the yearly sum of Rs. 2,40,000 by six instalment, with interest at 12per cent per annum on any over-due instalment, and to pay the said debts and to keep the appellant indemnified against all suits, actions and proceedings whatsoever in respect of the said debts or any of them. The indenture does not itself contain any charge on the estate of the annual sums convenanted to be paid; but their Lordships of the Judicial Committee were informed and the case proceeded upon the footing that the stipulated security had been given by a separate document. Their Lordships held : (i) that the annual payment was not agricultural income as it was not rent or revenue derived from land, but money payable under a contract imposing a personal liability on the convenantor, the discharge of which was secured by a charge on land; (ii) that this was clearly a case where the owner of an estate (the assessee) had exchanged a capital asset for (inter alia) a life annuity which was income in his hands and not a case in which he had exchanged his estate for a capital sum payable in instalments; and (iii) that this income was taxable under the IT Act even though the annuity did not constitute or provide a profit or gain to the assessee. Their Lordship have pointed out that the word "income" is not limited by the words "profits and gains" and anything which can properly be described as income is taxable under the Act unless expressly exempted. At page 241, Lord Russell of Killowen observed : "What he does, and what he states in the document he wishes to do, is to part with the estate in order to get rid of his debts, and to obtain for himself an adequate income. He accordingly transfers the estate to the Rani and obtains from her in exchange : (1) a covenant to pay the debts in the second schedule, (2) a sum of cash to meet the expenses of his daughter's marriage, and (3) a covenant to pay him a life annuity. This is clearly no ordinary bargain and sale by a vendor and purchaser at arm's length, for the money consideration bears no relation to the actual value of the property. The amount ultimately payable by the purchaser depends upon the life of the vendor. It is, their Lordships think, clearly a case where the owner of the estate has exchanged a capital asset (inter alia) a life annuity which is income in his hands. It is not a case in which he has exchanged his estate for a capital sum payable in instalments."