Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Rajasthan
Vs. Her Highness Maharani Gayatri Devi of Jaipur  INSC 245 (14 September
Wealth Tax Act (27 of 1957), s.
2(e)(iv)-Assessee entitled to half share of income of trust fund-Trust fund
capable of being augmented If assessee entitled to annuity or interest in
property assessable to wealth tax.
The trust deed executed by the husband of the
respondentassessee provided that the trustees should pay to the assessee during
her life time 50 per cent of the income of the trust fund. The settlement was
irrevocable and the properties mentioned in the schedule to the trust deed
stood transferred to the name of the trustees. Under the clauses of the deed
,the trust fund was not a fixed sum but was capable of being augmented.
On the question whether the assessee-was
entitled only to an annuity within the meaning of that expression in s. 2(e)
(iv) of the Wealth Tax Act or had an interest in the corpus of the trust which
could be brought to tax under the Wealthtax Act.
HELD: The intention of the husband was that
the assessee should get 15130 share from out of the income of the trust fund.
Since neither the trust fund nor the amount payable to the assessee was a fixed
sum, what the assessee was entitled to was not an annuity but an allquot share
in the income of the trust fund. The fact that in the particular assessment
year there was no change in the trust fund was irrelevant because the question
whether a particular income is an annuity or not does not depend upon the
amount received in a particular year. [712 D-H] Hence the assessee had a life
interest in the trust fund which could be brought to tax under the Wealth-tax
Act. [713 A-B] Ahmed G. H. Ariff & Ors. v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, 76
I.T.R. 471 and Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Gujarat Arundhati Balkrishna, 77
I.T.R. 505, followed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 2149 of 1968.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated
January 3, 1967 of the Rajasthan High Court in D. B. Wealth Tax Reference No. 6
S. Mitra, O. P. Malhotra, R. N. Sachthey and
B. D. Sharma, for the appellant.
M. C. Setalvad, H. P. Gupta and B. R.
Agarwala, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court has delivered by
Hegde, J. This appeal by certificate arises out of the wealth tax assessment of
the assessee-respondent, an individual, for the year 1959-60, the corresponding
valuation date being* March 708 31, 1959. The assessee is the, wife of Maharaja
On September 9, 1953, the Maharaja made a
settlement at London. Under the deed of settlement, he appointed Sir Harold
Augustus Warner as the trustee of the property detailed in the deed of
settlement. The settlement is an irrevocable one and the properties mentioned
in the schedule to the trust deed stood transferred to the name of the trustee.
The trust deed provides that the trustee should pay to the assessee during her
life time 50 per cent of the income of the trust fund. The question arose
whether the assessee can be held to have any share in the corpus of the trust
and whether the same can be brought to tax under the provisions of the Wealth
Tax Act, 1957 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Wealth-tax
Officer came to the conclusion that the assessee's interest in U.K. Trust
amounting to Rs. 15,75,694/plus the income-tax reserve thereon Rs.
1,75,401/have to be included in the assessee's total wealth. This decision was
confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal. Thereafter the
assessee took up the matter in second appeal to the Income-tax Appellate
Tribunal. The Tribunal for reasons set out in paragraphs 6 to 10, 12 and 13 of
its order held that the assessee did not get any life interest in the corpus
but it held that her interest was an interest which was an asset under the Act,
but for S. 2 (e) (iv) of the Act. In other words, it held that the assessee had
only a right to get annuity from out of the trust fund and as such her right is
exempt from wealth tax in view of s. 2 (e) (iv) of the Act.
In the view it took, the Tribunal considered
that it was not necessary to ascertain the proper and correct method of
valuation of the assessee's right. It directed that if and when its conclusion
on the interpretation of the clauses were set aside, the appeal should be
posted again before it for further hearing for ascertaining the correct method,
At the instance of the Department, the
Tribunal stated the case and referred the following two questions to the High
Court of Rajasthan for its opinion.
"(1) Whether on a proper construction of
the deed of settlement the assessee has any interest in the corpus of the deed
(2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of
this case, the right of the assessee derived under the deed of settlement is
exempt from wealth-tax by virtue of the provisions of sec. 2 (e) (iv) of the
Act." A Division Bench of that High Court answered the first question-in
the negative and the second question in the affirmative both against the
Department. The High Court held 709
1. that the assessee was not given any
interest in the corpus of the, property.
2. that the income that the assessee was
receiving on account of the 15/30 parts of the trust fund was in the nature of
an annuity, and
3. that the terms and conditions relating to
the assessee's right to annuity preclude commutation of any portion thereof
into a lump sum grant.
The only question that arises for decision in
this appeal is whether the share of income to which the assessee is entitled to
receive under the trust deed executed by her husband can be considered as
annuity within the meaning of that expression in s. 2 (e) (iv). If it is
considered as an annuity, there is no dispute that the, terms and conditions
relating to the assessee's right relating to annuity precluded commutation of
any part thereof into a lump sum grant. Therefore all that we have to see is
whether the income received by the assessee was an annuity or an aliquot share
in the income arising from the fund. As seen earlier, the High Court as taken
the view that the income in question was an annuity. In arriving at that
conclusion, it has referred to various decisions of the English courts as well
as the courts in this country. But in view of the two recent decisions of this
Court, it is not necessary for us to examine those decisions.
In Ahmed G. H. Ariff and Ors. v. Commissioner
of Wealthtax(1) one of us (Grover, J.) speaking for the Court observed that the
right of a beneficiary to receive an aliquot share of the net income of
properties comprised in a wakf-alal-aulad created by a Muslim governed by the
Hanifi school of Mohamedan law is "property" and is covered by the
definition of "assets" in section 2 (e) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957
and the capitalised, value of that right is assessable to wealth tax.
In Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Gujarat v.
Arundhati Balkrishna, (2) this Court accepted as correct the distinction
brought out between an annuity and an aliquot share in the income of a fund by
Kindersley V. C. in Bignold v. Giles ( 3) Therein the learned judge stated the
law thus :
"An annuity is a right to receive de
anno in annum a certain sum; that may be given for life, or for a series of
years; it may be given during any particular period or in perpetuity and there
is also this singularity (1) 76, I.T.R. 471. (2) 77 I.T.R. 505.
(3) (1859) 4, Drew 345; 113 Revised Reports
710 about annuities, that although payable
out of the personal assets, they are capable of being given for the purpose of
devolution, as real estate; they may be given to a man and his heirs, and may
go to the heir as real estate;
so an annuity may be given to a man and the
heirs of his body, that does not, it is true, constitute an estate tail, but
that is by reason of the Statute De which contains only the word 'tenements'
and' an annuity, though a here determent is not a tenement, and an annuity so
given is a base fee." Proceeding further the learned judge observed
"But this appears to me at least clear, that if the gift of what is called
an annuity is so made, that, on the face of the will itself, the testator shows
his intention, to give a certain portion of the dividend of a fund, that is a
very different thing; and most of the cases proceed on that footing. The ground
is, that the court construes the intention of the testator to be, not merely to?
give an annuity, but to give an aliquot portion of the income arising from a
certain capital fund." Applying the principles laid down in these
decisions, we have now to see as to what was the nature of the right conferred
on the assessee under the trust deed ? The trust deed starts by saying that
"the settlor is, absolutely entitled to the investments specified in the
Schedule hereto (hereinafter called "the Scheduled Property")"
and that he is desirous of making an irrevocable settlement of the Scheduled
Property for the benefit of his wife (the assessee) and his four sons. One of
the clauses in the deed says that "the settlor has accordingly
transferred( or intends forthwith to transfer the Scheduled Property into the
name of the Trustee to be held by him upon the trusts and with and subject to
the powers and provisions hereinafter declared and contained concerning the
same." "The Scheduled Property and any other investments or property
which may from time to time be transferred to and accepted by the Trustee as
additions, to the Scheduled Property and any other capital moneys, which may be
received by the Trustee in respect of the 711 trust premises and the
investments and property for the time being representing the same respectively
are together called "the Trust Fund".
From this clause, it is clear that the
"Trust Fund" is not a fixed sum. It is capable of being augmented in
several ways.. At the time of creation of the trust, the only assets mentioned
in the schedule to the trust deed was pound 300,000 31 War Loan.. But as seen
earlier this fund was capable of being augmented.
Clauses of the trust deed which are relevant
for our present purpose are clauses 2, 3, 4(1) and 7. They read:
Clause 2 :
The Trustee shall stand possessed of the
scheduled property and any other investments or property which may from time to
time be transferred to and accepted by the Trustee as aforesaid UPON TRUST that
the Trustee may either allow the same to remain actually invested so long as
the Trustee thinks fit or may at any time or times at his discretion sell call
in or convert into money the same or any part thereof and shall at his
discretion (but subject to the restriction contained in clause 9 hereof) invest
the moneys produced thereby and any other capital moneys which may be received
by him in respect of the trust premises in the name or under the legal control
of the Trustee in or upon any investments hereby authorised with power at his
discretion to vary or transpose any investments for or into others of any nature
hereby authorised." Clause 3 :
The Trustee shall divide the Trust Fund into
thirty equal parts and shall stand possessed of such parts and the income
thereof respectively upon the trusts and, with and subject to the powers and
provisions herein after declared and contained concerning the same.
Clause 4(1) :
THE TRUSTEE shall stand possessed of fifteen
such parts of the Trust Fund UPON TRUST to pay the income thereof to the wife
during her life and after her death shall hold the said fifteen such parts of
the Trust Fund and the income thereof Upon the same powers and provisions as
are hereinafter declared and contained concerning the share in the Trust Fund
which is hereinafter directed to be held in trust for the said 712 Maharaj
Kumar Jagat Singh or as near thereto as circumstances will admit.
NOTWITHSTANDING the trusts hereinbefore
declared the Trustee if he in his absolute discretion thinks fit may at any
time by writing under his hand declare that the whole or any part of the share
(whether original or accruing) in the Trust Fund to the income whereof any
Beneficiary shall then be entitled in possession or any property appropriated
in or towards the satisfaction of such share shall thenceforth be held IN TRUST
for such Beneficiary absolutely and thereupon the trusts hereinbefore declared
concerning such share or the part thereof or the property to which such
declaration relates shall forthwith determine and the Trustee may at any time
thereafter transfer such share or the part thereof or the property to which
such declaration relates to such Beneficiary absolutely." From these
clauses it is clear that the intention of the Maharaja was that the assessee
should get a half share in the income of the trust fund. Neither the trust fund
was fixed nor the amount payable to the assessee was fixed. The only thing
certain is that she is entitled to a 15/30 shares from out of the income of the
trust fund. That being so, it is evident that what she was entitled to was not
an annuity but an aliquot share in the income of the trust fund.
Mr. Setalvad, learned Counsel for the
assessee contended that during the year with which we are concerned, there was
no change in the trust fund and in view of that fact and as we are considering
the liability to pay wealth-tax, we would be justified in holding that the
amount receivable by the assessee in the year concerned was an annuity. We see
no force in this contention. The question whether a particular income is an
annuity or not does not depend on the amount received in a particular year.
What we have to see is, what exactly was the intention of the Maharaja in
creating the trust. Did he intend to give the assessee a pre-determined sum
every year or did he intend to give her an aliquot share in the income of a
fund ? On that question, there can be only one answer and that is that he
intended to give her an aliquot share in the income of the trust fund. As
income cannot be an annuity in one year and an aliquot share in another year.
It cannot change its character year after year. From the facts found, it is
clear that the assessee has a life interest in the trust fund.
713 For the reasons mentioned above, we allow
this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and discharge the answers
given by the High Court to the questions referred to it by the Tribunal and in
its place we answer those questions in favour of the Department. The
Commissioner is entitled to his costs of this appeal from the respondent,
V.P.S. Appeal allowed.