K. A. Ramachar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras

380 SUPREME COURT REPOl{TS [1961] _I96I_ structure. Under these circumstances it would be _Th_ _e_ _F_ _trs_ _[. ][-t-N ]_ _a_ _1_ _sona_ _[. ]_ _1_ [erroneous ] 0 fi, [not ] [to ] [treat ] f [the ] . [amount ] f d [of ] [''Undivided ] _City Bank_ ~ ro ts as a part o the cap1tal un . v. In our opinion therefore the amount designated as _1"he Commissioner_ "Undivided Profits " is a part of the reserves and has 0~ In~ome~~~, to be taken into account when computing the capital _om_ _ay_ _uy_ and reserves within R. 2(1) of Schedule II of the Act. _Kapur_ _J._ The question which was referred by the Tribunal should have been decided in the affirmative and in favour of the appellant and the amount should have been added to the capital as allowed by R. 2( 1) for the Chargeable Accounting Periods. In the result the appeal is allowed. The appellant will have its costs in this Court and in the High Court. _Appeal_ _allowed._ _january IO._ K. A. RA~IACHAR AND ANOTHER _v._ COM~llSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 1\:!ADRAS. (J. L. 1\.APUH., M. HTDAYATULLAH and J. C. SHAH, JJ.) _I_ ncome-tax~Assessee _assigning portion_ _of his profits of part-_ _nership firm_ _to_ _his wife m•d daughters--Such profits,_ _if_ _can_ _be_ _includ-_ _ed_ _in the_ _assessee's total_ _income for purposes of_ assessment~ _Income-_ _tax_ _ActJ_ _1922 (II of I922),_ _S._ I6(I)(c). One Rangachari, a partner of a partnership firm, assigned by means of a deed of settlement a fourth share of the profits of the firm each to his wife, a married adult daughter and a minor daughter for 8 years with the right to receive the said share of profits absolutely and exclusively from the firm. The question which arose before the High Court on a reference under s. 66(1) of the Income-tax Act was " \Vhether the inclusion in the assessee's total income of the profits settled by him on his wife and two daughters is justifiec.l in law?'' The assessee H.angachari relying on the rule laid down by the Privy Council in _Bijoy_ _Singh Dudhuria's_ case claimed that the amounts payable to his wife and two daughters never became his income, being diverted by an overriding title and that those amounts could not be included in his total income for the purposes of assessment being excluded by reason of the third provi~o to s. r6(1)(c) of the Incorne~tax Act. The High Court held that the third proviso was not attracted and that the income had accrued to the assessee in the first instance, and had then been applied for payments under the deeds. On appeal with a certificate of the High Court : _Held,_ that the answer given by the High Court was co:rect. # ~ . ' \ j \ I • 3 S.C.H. SUPRE~IE COUR'l' ltEPOHTS a~n An examination of the deeds of settlement showed that the _1_ _96I_ disponer had stated that from the profits " payable to him " certain amounts in specified shares were to be paid to his wife _1\._ _A._ _Ramacha"_ and two daughters. ~ o doubt, the assessee in those deeds created v. a right in favour of the disponees to get the amounts direct from _Commissioner_ _of_ the firm, of which he was a partner. The tenor of the document Tncom~~tax,Mad,as showed that the profits 'Yere first to accrue to him and were then applied for payments to the dispon<.:es. Under the law of partnership, it i.s the partner and the partner alone 'vho is entitled to the profits. A stranger, even if he were an assignee, has not anrl cannot have a direct claim to the profits. By the deeds in question, the assessee merely allowed a payment to his wife and daughters to constitute a valid discharge in favour of the firm, but 'vhat was paid was, in law, a portion of his prof1ts or, in other words, his income. The rule in _Bijoy Singh's_ case was not applicable to this case, and in view of the decision of this court in _Sitaldas Tirathdas's_ case it cannot be said that the profits were diverted by an overriding title before they accrued to the assessee. _Provat Kumar Mitter_ v. _Commissioner_ _of Income-tax, ll'est_ _Bengal_ lrg6r] 3 S.C.R. 37· _Tulsidas Kilachand_ v. _The Commissioner of_ _Income-tax_ [rg6r] 3 S.C. R. 351. _The Commissioner of_ _Income-tax, Bombay v. Sitaldas Tirathdas_ [1961] 2 S.C. R. 634, applied. _Bijoy_ _Singh Dudhuria_ v. _Commissioner_ _of Income-tax,_ _Benp,al_ [1933J r I.T.R. 135, held inapplicable. CIYJL APPELLATE JURISDICTIO~: Civil Appeals Nos. 142 and 143 of 1960. Appeals from the judgment and order dated July 21, 1955, of the Madras High Court in C.R. No. 32 of 1952. _G._ _S. Pathak_ and _Naunit Lal,_ for the appellants. _K._ _N._ _Rajagopal Sastri_ and _D. Gupta_ for the respondent. 1961. Januan· 10. The Judgment of the Court. was delivered byv CIYJL APPELLATE JURISDICTIO~: Civil Appeals Nos. 142 and 143 of 1960. ###### HIDAYATULLAH, J.-These are two appeals by the Hiday&aJullah J. legal representatives of one A. R. Rangachari, who ###### died during the pendency, in the High Court at Madras, of proceedings in a reference under s. 66( I) of the Income~tax Act made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench. The following question was referred to the High Court for its decision : ###### 382 ::;UPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] _1_ _61_ _9_ "Whether the inclusion in the assessee~s total _K.A. Ramachar_ income of the profits settled by him on his wife v. and two daughters is justified in law ? " _Commissioner of_ The High Court answered the quest ion i 11 the :-tffir~ _Income-ta);, Madras_ mative. The appeals have been tiled with a. CPrtificate _Hidayatt41lah )_ . [g][ranted ][by ][the ][High ][Court. ] Rangachari was one of five partners of 11 firm, Messrs. Chari and Ram, and held 11 :-;ix-anna :-;hare in the profits and loss of the partnership. On September 22, 1947, he executed three cJeedH of settlemeut., which are marked ExtH. A, A~l and A-2, in favour of his wife, a married adult. daughter and a minor daughter. To each of them, he assigned a fourth share of the profits of the firm payable to him (but not the losses), for a period. of M years, vesting the right in them to receive the said share of profits absolutely and exclusively and declaring the settlements to be irrevocable during the above period. It is not necessary to refer to the three documents, because the terms are the same. A few clauses of the deed, Ex. A, may be quoted. After recitals which included the following: "Whereas the Settlor has settled upon his minor daughter, Srimathi l\Ieera Bai, one-fourth of his share of profits payable to him from the firm for a period of eight years; And whereas out of natural love and affection, the Settlor is desirous of conferring upon the Beneficiary a similar portion of his share of profits from the firm", the deed goes on to say : " Now this Indenture witnesseth as follows : I. The Settlor hereby assigns unto the Beneficiary all the rights of the Settlor in respect of one~fourth of his share of profits in the firm (but not the losses) payable to him during a period of eight years commencing from the date hereof to be taken and enjoyed by the Beneficiary in absolute and exclusive right. 2. The Settlor shall not _b_ a yc any manner of right or interest in the said one-fourth share herehy settled and the right to receive from the firm one-fourth of ###### 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 383 the Settlor,s share during the said period of eight _1 961_ years shall exclusively vest in the Beneficiary. _K._ _A._ _Ramachar_ 3. The Beneficiary shall be entitled directly to v. receive and collect from the firm the share of profits _Commissioner of_ hereby transfened for the Raid period of eight years. _Income-tax, Madras_ If - 111o 1 I. I + I 11 + I •• 41 111o 1o ... - _4._ ' 111o ' ' 111o + f - + .f' - - ' I + t - 111o I If - If If I I I t I I + I ' ' - 111o I - I - - - + ' + I t <t ~ I + t lllo I 8. This settlement shall be irrevocable." For the assessment year 1947-48 corresponding _to_ a previous year ending on April 13, 1947, the profits due to Rangachari amounted to Rs. 86,491-13-0. This amount was credited to the account of Rangachari, and Rs. 21,622-15-3, bring one-fourth thPref)f, were transfezTed to the accounts of each of the three disponees. In the same lvay, the profits oft he prey ions yf:'ar ending April 13, 1948, were dispo~ed of. The a~sessee claimed that these amounts could not be ine1uded in his total incon1e for purposes of assessment, being excluded by rt·ason ofthe third proviso to s. l6(l)(c) of the Ineozne-tax Act. He also contended that the amount payable to his wife and two daughters never became his income, being diverted by an overriding title, and that the case was governed by the rule laid down by the Privy Council in _Bijoy Singh_ _Dudhuria_ v. _Com'missioner of_ lncome-ta~, _Bengal_ (1). The assessee's contentions were not accepted by the Inco1ne- t a.x Officer, .and his appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal also failed. In so far as the assessment year 1947-48 was concerned, the Income-tax Officer held that the incorne had already accrued to the assessee, because the deeds were executed five months after the cJose of the account year. He also held that the transfer to the minor daughter fell within s. 16(3), as there was no adequate consideration for the transfer. With regard to the \vife and marrit>d daughter, he held that s. 16(l)(c) was not applicable, because what had been transferred was income first accruing to the assessee 9 whiles. 16(l)(c) contemplated income which accrued to a. person, to whom the transfer was made. The same reasons (excPpt th~ first) were given for rejecting the (I) (1933) I I.T.R. 135· _Hidayatullah_ _f._ .. ··/ .~ ~- . - "'~-"' ~. .. ·. IL '###### ..___,.. ,. ; _I_ _.;_,~ - . -·. -~ .~ ~- . ;· . ; I . - ' "- '_{ 384 SUPTIE:\IE C:OlTRT REPORTS .. ...........___._ [19611 #### ..... ' \ ____ . ":- '\ . _J96I_ . ~.· assessee's'. COntentionS • in respect -Of the .Other aSSeSS• ·· - .. - men t vear. _:_ - · _- ·\. _ · · . · ~ ·. . . - _K._ _A. Ramachar_ _J_ - - ###### · It is not necessary to refe·r in ·detail to~the decisions . co-~mi;;ion~r _of_ of the· _A_ ppe1Iate Assist~nt Commissioner; th_e '~ribunal - _Income-tax,Madras_ and the High Court~ ~The High Coh'rt in an Claborate ##### - ... judgmen~ p~in.ted ou~· that ·s. 16{l)(c) ~lid 'nota:pply to _llidayatullah]._ these proceedings; and that t~1e· tlurd'·provtso ·was, #### therefore, not attracted .. ·· It also held that the iucome had o.ccrued to the. ass-essee 'in the first instance~ .and ·-···· had then: be~n-iipplied for payments under the deeds. This Court· has recently decided tliree cases which have· ·a· direct, bearing ·in.· this connection-. :_:In _Provat_ _Kumar-.iJiittei_ v.·. _Commissioner_ lncome~tax~L _JVest_ # _.or_ _Bengal_ (1), • the assessee ·had· executed a deed of trust ·under which dividends:· from .. certain· shares,, -\vhich ·under which dividends:· from .. certain· shares,, -\vhich -·continued. tor be :his. ~a·ssets, .• trari.sferre:d _:to; his ## wr.re wife~ . It· ·was held~ that :the, case: diu . not: fall t within s; 16{l)(c), and that the: rulo in~Bijoy _Singh_ _Dudhuria's_ case (!j). also' did· not apply.~! In _1lulsidas -J(ilachand_ v. _·XheCommissioner of Income-li:u:, Bombay(_ _[3]_ _),_ th~ _husband ~- had· created a tru-st -of the shares,. constituting hims.elf ###### . as itne . trustee to pay :to the wife dividends from ##### those . ·shares for a·-·period'.· of seven; ~·ears. -_. It ; was . ' held that the case was riot governed:by_s. 16(l)(c): but ###### - ·--~·by _s: 16(3)(b). In -The. Commissio,ner. of ~1ncom~-_t(u;, -~~ -~ _.Bombay_ v. _Silaldas Tirathda8_ (~), the rule laidi down _by .the ·.Privy .Councn· in _'Bijoy. Singh _Dudhuria's_ case ( [2] ) - . · · .. was considered ·along with:, the . c~se of the·_ Privy Council in _P._ c~ _jJullick._ v; _Commissioner_ of-}ncf?me~ta;c, ·. - . _._ Beng~l ( [5] ), ·and. it was pointed: out,· Jhat. the ·tule in . . · _Bijoy B·ingh Dudhuria's_ case ( [2] )_applied.orily· to ;those - - ~ .. ·.cases where-- it could. ·be. said that._by:an overriding :- . 'title the income was diverted :in such .a way. as·· nev:er #### · •: .- :· ·-Jo . become .. the·. income of the assessee... These ·three . . cases; in our ·opinion,- afford a complete answer .. to the - •• !. ·.contentions of the appellants.· . ·, . -, -'· .. :' ·. · : . An examination· of. the deeds of settlement shows·. ###### ·:,, · · .. ·that the disponer had stated· that frol!:r ·the profits ·_.· .· _ . "payable to him" certain amounts in specified shares were to -b~ paid_to his wi.fe and two daughters. _-;No (I) [t961] 3 s.c.R. 37.. .-_ {3). (1961) 3 s.c.n:. 351. (2) [1933] [ l.T. R. 135· (4} ( TQ6I] 2 S.C.R.- 6H . - ~ -. . . ., . . . _ . _ (_S_)_ (z_93s] 6I.!.R. 206: 3 S.C.R. SUPREl\IE COURT REPORTS 385 doubt, the assessee in those deeds created a right in _I9_ _[61 ]_ favour of the disponees to get the amounts direct _I\._ _A. Ramachar_ from the firm, of which he was a partner. The tenor v. of the documents shows that the profits were first to _Commissioner of_ accrue to him and were then applied for payments t.o _Jncomt-tax, Madra!_ the disponees. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that what had been assigned was an action- _llidayatullah_ _f._ able claim, to wit, the right to profits, and therefore the profits were diverted, before they accrued to the disponer. This, in our opinion, is neither in accordance with the law of partnership nor with the facts as we have found on the record. Under the law of pa.rtnership, it is the partner and the partner A>lone who is entitled to the profits. A stranger, even if he were an assignee, has not and cannot have a direct claim to the profits. By the deeds in question, the asse~see merely allowed a payment to his wife and daughters to constitute a valid discharge in favour of the firm; but what was paid was, in law, a portion of his profits, or, in other words, his income. A glance at the account books of the firm, l\lessrs. Chari and Ran1, clearly shows that the amounts were first credited in the _Khata_ of Rangachari and then under his directions were transferred from his _Khata_ to those of his wife and daughters. The dispositions, therefore, were, in law and in fact, portions of the income of Rangachari, after the income had accrued to him, and tax was payable by him at the point of accrual. In view of the decision of this Court in _Sitaldas Tirath-_ _das's_ case (1), it cannot be said that the profits were diverted by an overriding title before they accrued to Rangachari; and the rule in _Bijoy Singh Dudhuria.' s_ case { [2] } cannot be called in aid. For the above reasons, we are in entire agreement with the High Court in the answer given and dismiss these appeals with costs. _Appeal8 dismissrd._ (I) [1961] 2 S,CR. 634. 49 (2) [rqnl r I.T.R. t3.'i·