Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. v. Gappumal Kanhalya Lal

MEHR CH~ND MAHAJAN ).-This appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 31st August, 1944, raises the same Qoints as have been discussed in Civil Appeal No. 66 of .1949 ( 1 ). The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred four questions · to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under sec­ tion 66 ( 1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. These questions related to the year of assessment 1939-40. The High Court answered two of the questions in the affirmative and two in the negative. The two questions relating to the appeal are those that were answered in the affirm­ ative and are as follows :- "Whethe1 ( 1) the amount of house-tax and (2) the amount of water-tax, imposed by the Municipal Board of Allahabad under section 128, sub-section ( l) clauses (i) and (x), respectively of the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916, and paid by the owner as a lessor under section 149 of that Act should be deducted as an allowance from the bona fide annual value of the property determined under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2) of secticm (9) of the Act, on the ground that such amount is an annual charge, which is not a capital charge to which the property is subject within the meaning of clause (iv) of sub-section ( 1) of section o of the Al:t." {1 )New Piecef!oods Bazar eo. lid. ". Commissioner of I~. Btm1(Jtt [1950] S.C.R. 553· S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 565 Under section 128 of the United Provinces Munici­ palities Act, 1916, the municipality can. impose a tax :in the whole or any part of the municipality on the annual value of buildings or Janel or of both, and a water-tax on the annual value of buildings or land or d both. Every such tax on the annual value of build­ ings or land or both is leviable on the actual occupier of the property upon which the said taxes are assessed,. if he is the owner of the buildings or lands or holds them on a building or other lease from the Crown or from the Board, or on a building lease from any person. In any other case the tax ·is leviable from the lessor, if the property is let (vide sectfon 149). Section 177 enacts that all sums due on account of· a tax imposed on the annual vall!e of buildings or lands or both shall 'Subject to the prior payment of the l~nd revenue, if any, due to His Majesty thereupon, be a first charge upon such buildings or lands. · · It is apparent therefore that die prov1S1ons of the United Provinces Act in respect of the levy of the taxes :are substantially similar to the provisions of the Bombay Act discussed in Civil Appeal No. 66 of 1949 ( 1 ) For the reasons given in that appeal and as a result of that decision this appeal stands dismissed with com . and we consider that the High Court of Allahabad has answered the questions above mentioned correctly. Appeal dismissed. Agent for the appellant: P. A. Mehta. Agent for the respondent : S. P. Varma. (') [1950] S.C.R. 55l 1950 Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. v. Gappumal K anhaiya Lal Mahajan].