36,322/8/ to Babu Hat Narain Singh anal his heirs in perpetuity.
It relied on the fact that the amount which had been received by the successors of Babu Harnarain Singh varied from year to year.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated July 27, 1959 of the Allahabad High Court in Income tax Reference No.
The disputes between the Jagirdars and Zamindars ultimately ended in 1837 by a companypromise between the British Government and the then Jagirdar Hat Narain Singh whereby the British Government granted a pension of Rs.
was a right to a share of one fourth in the net land revenue companylections after deducting companyts of Tahsil establishment.
The letter by which the amount of pension was determined at Rs.
Secretary to Lt.
36,322/8/ is dated 7th of July, 1837 and was from H. Elliot Esqr.,
That case arose out of the writ petition filed by the present respondent in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for a writ in the nature of mandamus calling upon the State of Uttar Pradesh to forbear from interfering with his right to regular payment of the pension, allowance or Malikana payable in lieu of the hereditary estate of Harnarain Singh in respect of parganas Syudpore Bhettree and for an order for payment of the pension, allowance or malikana as it fell due.
36,396/ on account of the aforesaid pension.
It appears that in 1796 there were some disputes between Babu Ausan Singh and the Zamindars in the district and the matter was referred by the Collector of Benaras to the Board of Revenue in Calcutta.
Raja Bahadur Karnakhaya Harain Singh 1 .
the Secretary Sadar Board of Revenue N.W.P. Allahabad, to J. Thompson Esqr.,
The quantum of this pension was calculated on the basis of 1/4th of the revenue of the Jagir.
Government, W.P The pension was paid regularly from year to year by the Government to Babu Har Narain Singh and his heirs.
307 of 1957.
The British Government granted a sanad of Raj to Raja Chet Singh who in turn gave the Jagir of Parganas Seyedpore and Bhittery in perpetuity to Babu Ausan Singh.
The Income tax Officer appealed to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal.
By this arrangement the revenue or land companylections of Jagir became payable by the Zamindars direct to the Government and by the grant of the pension, Babu Hat Narain Singh and his successors numberlonger remained the proprietors of the Parganas or the Jagir and became entitled to merely a pension.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Income tax Officer, in spite of the objection of the assessee, held that it was a regular annual income of the assessee and did number fall within the category of agricultural income tax.
It observed that the language of the letter and this companyduct of the parties can only lead to the inference that, by this settlement companytained in the letter of 7th July, 1837, Babu Har Narain Singh and his successors were granted in perpetuity a right to one fourth of the land revenue companylections themselves and number merely a right to receive u sum of money calculated on that basis.
During the previous year of the assessment year 1949 50, the assessee received a sum of Rs.
The district of Benaras was formerly a part of Oudh territory.
V. Gupte, Solicitor General, R. Ganapathy Iyer and R.N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
V. Viswanatha Sastri and S.P. Varma, for the respondent.
The source of the pension was a liability undertaken by the Government for extinguishing the proprietary rights of the Jagirdar and when the immediate source of the income was number land or rent companylections from land, it is difficult to hold that the receipt of the assessee was agricultural income within the meaning of Section 4 3 viii of the Income tax Act.
The High Court held that from the language of the letter of July 7, 1837, it was manifest that the right which was companyferred 1948 16 I.T.R. 325.
68 of 1964.
The relevant facts stated in the Statement of the case are as follows The assessee is a Hindu undivided family headed by one Sri Trivikram Narain Singh who is a descendant of one Sri Babu Ausan Singh who was the original founder and owner of what is known as Ausanganj State in the district of Benaras.
The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who held that the alleged cash grant of varying and unspecified amount received by the appellant, in relation to land revenue of Seyedpur number Tehsil of District Ghazipur, clearly fell within the definition of agricultural income under Section 2 1 of the Incometax Act.
36,396/ was chargeable to tax under the Act as the income was number agricultural income for although the pension was determined with respect to the quantum of the rent companylection the rent companylections or the land companyld number be said to be the immediate source of the pension.
By a Treaty between the East India Company Nawab Asfuddaula in or about the year 1775, the province of Benaras was ceded to the British Government.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. This appeal pursuant to a certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court under s. 66A 2 of the Income tax Act hereinafter referred to as the Act is directed against the judgment of the High Court in a reference under the Act, answering the question referred to it in the negative.
36,396/ received by the assessee as an allowance during the previous year of the assessment year 1949 50 is revenue income liable to tax under the Indian Income tax Act, 1922?
