Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Zoroastrian Building Society Ltd., Bombay - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference No. 2 of 1954
Judge
Reported in[1955]27ITR218(Bom)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 9(1), 9(2), 22 and 23; Bombay Finance Act, 1932
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
RespondentZoroastrian Building Society Ltd., Bombay
Appellant AdvocateG.N. Joshi, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateN.A. Palkhivala, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....which could be placed upon expression 'levy' used in third proviso to section 9 (2) is 'impose' and not 'collect' - assessee not entitled to relief sought for in view of above construction. - - ' therefore, the legislature made it perfectly clear that whether the tax was levied by a local authority or a state government or the central government, the tax could not be claimed as a permissible allowance under section 9(1). but the legislature was granted by enacting at the same time the third proviso to section 9(2). but the relief that the legislature granted was a limited relief......further that where the property is in the occupation of tenant and the taxes levied by any local authority in respect of the property are, under the law authorising such levy, payable wholly by the owner or partly by the owner and partly by the tenant : (a) one-half of the total amount of such taxes or one-eight of the annual value of the property, whichever is less, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in such law, be deemed to be the tenant's liability for such taxes, and (b) in determining the annual value of the property with reference to the rent payable by the tenant, a deduction shall be made equal to the part, if any, of the tenant's liability which is borne by the owner.' 2. therefore, before a deduction can be made for the purpose of ascertaining the bona fide.....
Judgment:

Chagla, C.J.

1. The question that arises in this reference is whether the assessee is entitled to deduct half the urban immovable property tax for the purpose of determining the bona fide annual value of the property belonging to the assessee. This question can be determined on a construction of the third proviso to section 9(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act and that provides :-

'Provided further that where the property is in the occupation of tenant and the taxes levied by any local authority in respect of the property are, under the law authorising such levy, payable wholly by the owner or partly by the owner and partly by the tenant :

(a) one-half of the total amount of such taxes or one-eight of the annual value of the property, whichever is less, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in such law, be deemed to be the tenant's liability for such taxes, and

(b) in determining the annual value of the property with reference to the rent payable by the tenant, a deduction shall be made equal to the part, if any, of the tenant's liability which is borne by the owner.'

2. Therefore, before a deduction can be made for the purpose of ascertaining the bona fide annual value, the conditions necessary are : (1) that there must be a tax levied by a local authority, (2) to tax must be levied by the local authority under some law which authorities the local authority to levy the tax, and (3) that exemption which can only be up to one-half, can only be claimed provided the landlord discharges any part of the tenant's liability with regard to that tax, which is deemed to be one-half.

3. Now, the whole question turns on the meaning to be given to the expression 'levied'. It is contended by the Department that 'levy' in this context means 'impose' and it is contended on behalf of the assessee by Mr. Palkhivala that 'levy' means 'collect'. It is undoubtedly true that 'levy' has been used in both senses depending upon the context in which the expression is used, and what we have to decide is whether in the context in which this expression is used it means 'collect'. or it means 'impose'. Now, this urban immovable property tax in respect of which exemption is claimed by the assessee was imposed by the Bombay Finance Act, 1932, and the charging section is section 22 which provides that there shall, subject to the provisions of section 23, be levied and paid to the Provincial Government a tax on buildings and lands hereinafter called the urban immovable property tax. The Legislature having levied this tax, it set up a machinery for the collection of the tax and the agent that it appointed for collection of the tax was the Bombay Municipality. Section 24AA provides :

'The collection of the urban immovable property tax under section 24 and the recovery of the penalty under section 24A on behalf of any municipality shall be made by the appropriate municipal authority appointed to collect the property tax on behalf of such municipality under the law under which such municipality is constituted.'

4. Therefore, as far as this particular Act is concerned, a clear distinction is drawn between the levying of the tax and the collecting of a tax. But levying is by the Provincial Legislature for the purposes of the Provincial Government, and the collection is by the municipality. As far as the Bombay Finance Act, 1932, is concerned, it could not possibly be urged that the expression 'levy' used in this Act meant to collect, because the Legislature has drawn clear distinction between 'levy' in the sense of 'impose' and 'collection' in its normal natural sense. But what is urged is that whatever may be the meaning of 'levy' in the Bombay Finance Act.

5. Now, in order to understand this contention, it is necessary to look at the legal history of the enactment of this proviso. This proviso was enacted by the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act (LXXI of 1950) and it came to be enacted under the following circumstances. The Bombay High Court took the view that the urban immovable property tax and the property tax levied by the municipality was not an annual charge within the meaning of section 9(1)(iv) and therefore the tax paid by an owner on a property was not a permissible allowance under section 9(1). The Supreme Court in New Piece Goods Bazar Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, took a different view and the view it took was that both the urban immovable property tax and the property tax levied by the municipality were an annual charge. In view of this decision of the Supreme Court an explanation was added by the Income-tax (Amendment) Act, to which reference has just been made, to section 9(1)(iv), and the explanation provided that 'for the purpose of clause (iv) of the sub-section the expression 'annual charge' does not include any tax in respect of property or income from property levied by a local authority or a State Government or the Central Government.' Therefore, the Legislature made it perfectly clear that whether the tax was levied by a local authority or a State Government or the Central Government, the tax could not be claimed as a permissible allowance under section 9(1). But the Legislature was granted by enacting at the same time the third proviso to section 9(2). But the relief that the Legislature granted was a limited relief. The relief was not with regard to what was covered by the new explanation to section 9(1)(iv). The Legislature did not intend that the property owner should have relief with regard to all taxes levied by a local authority, a State Government or the Central Government, and therefore in the proviso to section 9(2) it only gave relief with regard to a tax imposed by a local authority, and even there the relief was not with regard to the whole of the tax, the relief was only to the extent of half the tax which was deemed to be payable by the tenant with this further condition that half must be paid by the landlord in order to claim exemption for the purpose of determining the annual letting value.

6. Now, the language used by the Legislature in the case of the explanation to section 9(1)(iv) and in the third proviso to section 9(2) is significant. In the case of the explanation the Legislature has dealt with the tax imposed by any of the tree authorities; a local authority, a State Government or the Central Government. In the case of the third proviso to section 9(2) it has confined itself to the tax levied by a local authority. It is urged that there is no reason why the expression 'levy' should not be construed as meaning 'collect'. In the first place, it is difficult to understand why the Legislature should have emphasised the question of collection of a tax. It seems to be imposed material as to which is the agency selected for the collection of a tax. What is more material and more relevant is to consider the authority which imposes the tax, and therefore from that point of view it is impossible to accept the construction that both in the explanation to section 9(1)(iv) and in the third proviso to section 9(2) the Legislature was applying its mind to the agency which would be collecting the tax and not the authority which would be imposing the tax. But there is this further difficulty in the way of accepting the construction suggested by Mr. Palkhivala. When we again turn to the third proviso it states : 'provided further that where the property is in occupation of a tenant and the taxes levied by any local authority in respect of the property are, under the law authorising such levy....' Therefore, it is necessary that there must be a levy under a law which authorities the local authority to make that levy. It is impossible to suggest that in this context 'levy' can mean 'collection.' The municipality must be given the power to impose the tax and it must exercise that power. If 'levy' is used in the latter part of the proviso and the only possible meaning to give to it is 'imposition' then it is not possible to give a different meaning to the very word 'levy' when it is used for the first time in the proviso. Therefore, to repeat what we have already said, the two conditions which the Legislature was emphasising were that a law must authorise the local authority to impose a tax and in pursuance of that authority the local authority must impose the tax. The position would be made clear if we turn to the City of Bombay Municipal Act. Chapter VIII deals with municipal taxes and section 139 refers to the various taxes which can be imposed by the Bombay Municipality, and then we have a heading 'Property Taxes leviable' and section 140 deals with the taxes which may be levied on buildings and lands by the municipality and shall be called the property tax. So this chapter deals with the power of the Bombay Municipality to levy taxes. The Bombay Municipality is authorised by this law to levy these and it was these taxes which the Legislature was contemplating when it enacted the third proviso to section 9(2) permitting a property owner to claim half of this tax as a deduction for the purpose of ascertaining the bona fide annual letting value.

7. Now there is another anomaly which would arise if we were to accept Mr. Palkhivala's contention. As pointed out by Mr. Joshi, under the Bombay Finance Act it is not always the municipality that collects the tax. In some cases the purpose to collect is given to the Collector and not to a local authority, and there may be cases where there may be no municipality, in which case the collecting authority will be someone else. If Mr. Palkhivala's contention were to be accepted, it would result in this rather curious situation that wherever there is a municipality owner will be entitled to deduct half of the urban immovable property tax, but where the collecting authority is the Collector or some authority other than the local authority, the property owner would not be entitled to but if we accept the construction that the material question is not the owner will be entitled to the same relief or suffer from the same disability, whoever the collecting might be. Therefore, looking at the matter from every point of view, it seems to us that the only natural and proper contraction which could be placed upon the expression 'levy' used in the third proviso to section 9(2) is 'impose' and not 'collect', and admittedly if that is the construction, then the assessee is not entitled to the relief which he has sought.

8. The result is that we must answer the question submitted to us in the negative. Assessee to pay the costs.

9. Reference answered in the negative.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //