Case: Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar And Orissa

purposes. The remuneration not being received as rent or revenue of agricultural lands under a title, legal or beneficial in the property from which the income is received, it is not income exempt under S. 4(3) (viii)8. We have briefly refer to the authorities which illustrate the meaning of "agricultural income in S. 2(1) of the Income-tax Act.9. In Habibullah v. Commr. of Income Tax, Bengal, 70 Ind App 141: (AIR 1943 PC 20 ), the Privy Council held that the remuneration received by a mutwalli of a wakf estate, not depending on the nature of the properties or assets which constitute the wakf nor on the amount of the income derived from the wakf estate, is not agricultural income within the meaning of S. 2(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act even though the income derived by the wakf estate is from properties used for agricultural purposes.10. In Premier Construction Co., Ltd, v. Commr of Income Tax, Bombay, 75 Ind App 246 : (AIR 1949 PC 20 ), it was held by the Privy Council that income received by an assessee not itself of a character to fall within the definition of agricultural income does not assume the character of agricultural income by reason of the source from which it is derived, or the method by which it is calculated. But if the income received falls within the definition of agricultural income, it earns exemption, in whatever character the assessee receives it. In that case, the remuneration payable to a managing agent of a company in consideration of services to be rendered was a minimum annual salary of Rs. 10,000/- payable irrespective of whether the company made any profit; but if 10 per cent of the profit made by the company exceeded by Rs. 10,000/- the agent was to get an additional remuneration calculated as a percentage upon the profits of the company without regard to the source from which those profits were derived. One of the sources of income of the company was agricultural income. It was held by the Privy Council that the assessee received no agricultural income as defined by the Act: he received remuneration under a contract for personal service calculated on the amount of profits earned by the employer.11. In Commr. of Income Tax, B and O. v. Kameshwar Singh, 62 Ind App 215: (AIR 1935 PC 172 ), income received by a mortgagee who went into possession of properties mortgaged to him was held to be agricultural income; but that was because under the deed of mortgage, the mortgagee was to be in possession of the properties and in his relation to the cultivators of the soil, he stood in the position of landlord dealing directly with them and collecting the rents. The mortgagee had to pay Government revenue, cesses and taxes and his name was registered in the Land Registration Department. He alone was able to sue for rent whether current or arrears , to sue for enhancement or for ejectment and was able to settle lands with raiyats and tenants in all the properties, in fact, he was in a position to take all proceedings which the mortgagor would have been able to take in the ordinary course if the lands leased and mortgaged had remained in the mortgagors possession. The mortgagee received the income, because of the legal ownership vested in him and even though under the convenant of the mortgage deed, he was required to appropriate the income towards his dues, the income in his hands did not cease to be agricultural income. In Kameshwar Singhs case, the court was called upon to consider the nature of the primary receipt by the mortgagee and not of the appropriation made under the covenant of the deed of mortgage.12. In Mohammad Isa v. Commr. of Income tax, Central and United Provinces, ILR (1942) All 425 : (AIR 1942 All 194 (SB)), the assessee was a mutwalli appointed under two deeds. Under both the deeds, he was to receive agricultural and non-agricultural income and to utilise the same for purposes of the trust. Under one of the two deeds of trust, the balance was to be retained by the mutwalli for his personal expenses and in the other in lieu of his services. It was held by the Allahabad High Court that the residue of the amounts retained by the mutwalli under both the deeds of trust was, as agricultural income, exempt from liability to pay tax. In the view of the court, though the language used in the two deeds of trust was different, the intention of the settler was the same: the mutwalli was required to perform the functions of his office and so long as he did so, he was entitled in consideration of the service to appropriate the residue of the profits. But in each case, the mutwalli was a beneficiary with an obligation attached to his enjoyment of the benefit, and had therefore two capacities, one as mutwalli and the other as beneficiary. The court on those facts held that the balance of the income from the zamindari went "through the mutwalli" to the beneficiary by virtue of an obligation imposed under the terms of the trust deed itself upon the income of the property. The mutwali was the channel through which the beneficiary received the money and the beneficiary was to all intents and purposes the direct recipient of the income, and there was no change of source and no alteration in the character of the income. It remained agricultural income after it had passed in the hands of the beneficiary. In the present case, the appellant has no beneficial interest in the trust property. The appellant so far as his remuneration is concerned is again not the direct recipient of the income of the trust : the source and the character of the income are both altered when agricultural income is appropriated under the covenant in the deed of trust as remuneration for services rendered.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 0

Reasoning from the judgment:
0[ds]6. Agricultural income falling under cl (a) ought manifestly to be received as rent or revenue derived from land used for agricultural purposes. The income received from agricultural properties of the trust by the appellant as trustee was indisputably agricultural income in hands and it was by virtue of S. 4(3) (viii) exempt from liability to pay tax. The appellant claims that the remuneration which by the covenant contained in the deed of trust he has received is also exempt under S. 4(3) (viii) because, when he appropriated a fraction of the rent or revenue of agricultural lands towards his remuneration, the original character of the income was not altered.7. The appellant has no beneficial interest in the lands which are subject matter of the trust; nor is he given under the trust a right to receive and appropriate to himself the income of the properties or a part thereof in lieu of any beneficial interest in that income. The source of the right in which a fraction of the net income of the trust is to be appropriated by the appellant as his remuneration is not in the right to receive rent or revenue of agricultural lands, but rests in the covenant in the deed to receive remuneration for management of the trust. The income of the trust appropriated by the appellant as remuneration is not received by him as rent or revenue of land; the character of the income appropriated as remuneration due is again not the same as the character in which it was received by the appellant as trustee. Both the source and character of the income are therefore altered when a part of the income of the trust is appropriated by the appellant as his remuneration, and that is so, notwithstanding that computation of remuneration is made as a percentage of the income, a substantial part whereof is derived from lands used for agricultural purposes. The remuneration not being received as rent or revenue of agricultural lands under a title, legal or beneficial in the property from which the income is received, it is not income exempt under S. 4(3) (viii)