Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The Moorshedabad Act, 1891.
2. The Murshedabad Estate Administration Act, 1933.
3. The Murshidabad Act, 1946.
4. The Murshidabad Estate Administration (Amendment) Act, 1959."
5. The said Act, as we have mentioned before, was amended again from time to time and at the material time with which we are concerned, the Murshidabad Estate (Trust) (Amendment) Act, 1963 was in force. The said amended provisions, inter alia, provided as follows:
"For Section 5 of the said Act, the following section shall be substituted, namely:--

13. Counsel for the revenue drew our attention to the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vadilal Lallubhai [1972] 86 ITR 2, at page 11, that the marginal note gave an indication as to what exactly was the mischief that was intended to be remedied. The said observations of the Supreme Court were made in the context of the marginal note of Section 44F of the I.T. Act, 1922. Our attention was also drawn to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhinka v. Charan Singh, , and reliance was placed on the observations of the Supreme Court appearing at pages 965 and 967 of the report, where it was observed that in case of doubt the heading of a section was a good guide for determining the effect of a provision. He urged that in view of the heading of the section. "Application of funds of the estate and income from trust properties" in Section 5 it should be held that the intention of the legislature was that the amount of Rs. 7,000 was to be applied from the income of the trustee and not a diversion of income by any overriding charge. The concept of diversion of income by overriding charge is a concept peculiarly germane in determining the fiscal liability in a particular situation. We do not think that while passing the Murshibadad Estate (Trust) (Amendment) Act, 1963, the West Bengal legislature was in any way concerned with the fiscal consequences of either the receipt of the money or the receipt of the income from the trust estate. Therefore, on the heading of the section it would not be safe to rely upon. As mentioned hereinbefore, physical receipt is not important. The problem of diversion of income arises only when there is legal physical receipt of an amount by one on behalf of the other. Lawful physical receipt of an amount of revenue by one on behalf of and for another by itself does not solve the question whether the receipt was an income of the recipient or of the person for whom and on whose account the amount is received. Whether the income is the income of the recipient or of the person for or on whose account the amount is received would depend on the nature of the obligation. As we have mentioned before, the obligation has its historical origin in the Nawab Bahadur relinquishing in favour of the British Government his right and privileges as the Nawab Nazim and Subehdar of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa and the amount in question given in consideration of this reliquishment was to be paid out of the revenue of the State of British India and not out of the properties of the Nawab Bahadur or of the Murshidabad Estate. Vesting of certain properties in the trustee has not, by the specific terms of the Acts, we have referred, alfered the paramountcy of the right of the Nawab of Murshidabad in respect of the money though the quantum has been modified. The Act of 1963 does not repeal this right but only implements in certain manner this right recognised in favour of the Nawab. Therefore, in our opinion, the obligation is of such nature that the amount in question is not receipt by the trustee as his income with an obligation to disburse it in a particular manner. The obligation was not of the trustee. The obligation was of the revenue of Government and the obligation was being implemented in the manner of the money being received by the trustee and handing over the same to the Nawab Bahadur. In that view of the matter, the question referred to us must be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Parties will bear their own costs.