VISHESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under Section 28(1) of the Bihar Agricultural Income-tax Act the Board of revenue has submitted a statement of the case on the following two questions of law :-- "1. Is the assessee entitled, under Section 6 (g) of the Bihar Agricultural Income tax Act, 1948, to claim deduction of the whole or part of the amount spent over the maintenance of the asse-ssee's residential building and the garden attached to the same?

(2.) Is the assessee entitled to claim a reasonable amount of deduction on account of maintenance expenses for such motor vehicles as may be considered necessary for his zamin-dari work under Section 6(g) of the Bihar Agricultural Income tax Act?" 2. With regard to the first question the argument of learned counsel for the assessee is that allowance should have been given by the taxing authorities for the cost of repair of the residential house at Dartahsnga. The amount claimed was Rs. 24,915/- and odd and the claim was made under Section 6(g) of the 1938 Act, namely, Bihar Act VII of 1938, which applies to this case. Section 6(g) was in the following terms :--

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner then advanced the argument that even if the asse'ssee was not using any portion of the house for the purpose of collecting rents, the assessee would still be entitled to claim an allowance under Section 6(g) of the statute. The argument of the petitioner is that it was not necessary to show that the residential building was used either wholly or in part for the collection of rents due in respect of the agricultural land of the zamindari. It was argued that the mere fact that the assessee was a zamindar and that he was deriving the agricultural income was sufficient to entitle hint to claim deduction under Section 6(g). I think that this argument is a rather extravagant argument and it is plainly contrary to the language of Section 6(g), which expressly states that maintenance of any capital asset could be deducted by the assessee from the total agricultural income, provided that "such maintenance is required in connection with the collection of rents due in respect of the land from which such agricultural income is derived." The meaning of Section 6(g) is that the assessee must show some kind of nexus between the maintenance of capital asset and the collection of rents due in respect of the land from which the agricultural income is derived. If no such connection and no such nexus is shown, then the assessee would not be entitled to claim a deduction under Section 6(g). That is the right interpretation of the statute, and applying that interpretation it appears to me that the claim of the assessee in this case was rightly rejected by the taxing authorities. Counsel on behalf of the assessee relied in this connection upon a decision of a Division Bench of this court in AIR 1953 Pat 167 (A) in support of his argument. But I do not think that that decision has any bearing on the question presented for determination in the present case, In AIR 1953 Pat 167 (A), the Maharaja of Darbhanga claimed a deduction of Rs. 56,000/-spent on repairs of Raj buildings at Darbhanga. It was found in that case that this amount was spent on the repairs of various buildings some intended for housing the departments of the Raj Office concerned with the collection of rent, some used for purely residential purposes, and some used for the accommodation of guests who visited the Maharaja not only in connection with social function but also in connection with the administration of the zamindari. The question of apportionment arose in that case and it was decided by the Division Bench that the amount spent on repairs could not be apportioned, and that decision was reached because of a previous Special Bench decision of this court in Province of Bihar v. Ramakhya Narayan Singh, AIR 1947 Pat 371 (B). It should be noticed that the amount of deduction claimed in that case by the assessee was a lump gum of Rs. 56,000/- which was not separately apportioned between the various Raj buildings. In the present case the question at issue is different. We are not concerned in this case with the question of apportionment; the question at issue is whether the assessee is entitled to claim the benefit of Section 6(g) with regard to a building no portion of which is used for the management of zamindari estate or for realisation of agricultural rent. It is an entirely different question and it was not the subject matter for consideration in AIR 1953 Pat 167 (A). The question of apportionment was the gist of that decision, and as I have stated already, that is not the question presented for determination in the present case. The ratio of AIR 1953 Pat 167 (A), has, therefore, no application to the present case. For the reasons I have already given I hold that the first question referred by the Board of Revenue must be answered against the assessee and in favour of the State of Bihar.