The Member For The Board Of Agricultural Income-Tax, Assam v. Smt. Sindhurani Chaudhurani

Case: THE MEMBER FOR THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX, ASSAM versus SMT. SINDHURANI CHAUDHURANI [[1957] 1 S.C.R. 1019] (1957) एससीआर। सर्वोच्चन्यायालयकीरिपोर्ट 1019 1957 हमारीरायहैकिउत्तरीएल्यूमीनियमकंपनीलिमिटेडमेंनिर्धारितसिद्धांतv.अंतर्देशीयराजस्वआयुक्त(1) औरअंतर्देशीयराजस्वआयुक्तv.नॉर्दर्नएल्यूमीनियमकं. लिमिटेड(2) वर्तमानमामलेकेनिर्णयपरलागूहोताहै, औरयहकिअप्रचलितजोखिमकेसंबंधमेंएकआकस्मिकदायित्वआरकेभीतर"उपार्जितदायित्व" नहींहै।2 एस. एच.II अधिनियमकेलिए। आयुक्त अतिरिक्तलाभ कर, पश्चिमबंगाल रूबीजनरल बीमाकंपनीलिमिटेड जिसनिर्णयसेअपीलकीगईहैवहसहीहै, औरइसअपीलकोतदनुसारलागतकेसाथखारिजकियाजानाचाहिए। वेंकटटरामा अय्यरजे। याचिकाखारिजकरदीगई। बोर्डकेलिएसदस्य 1957 -कृषिआयकर, असम 24 अप्रैल .वी एसएमटी।सिंधुरानीचौधरी ( संबंधितअपीलोंकेसाथ) ( भगवती, वेंकटटरामाअय्यरऔर जे. एल. कपूर जे. एल. कपूरजे.) ------सलामीइंडिसियायदिपूंजीप्राप्तिकृषिआयकरकेलिएदेयताअसमकृषिआयकरअधिनियम(1939 काअसमIX), एस।2 ( ए) (आई)। -सलामीकावास्तविकसंकेत(1) इसकाएकलहै।गैरआवर्तीचरित्रऔर(2) किरायेदारीकेनिर्माणणसेपहलेभुगतान।यहकिरायेदारद्वाराकिराएपरदिएजानेकेलिएभुगतानकियागयाप्रतिफलहै। कब्जाऔरनतोकिरायाऔरनहीराजस्वहोसकताहै, लेकिनयहमकानमालिककेहाथोंमेंएकपूंजीरसीदहै।कामाक्ष्यानारसिनसिंहबनाम।आयकरआयुक्त(1943) एल. आर. 70 आई. ए. 180 नेइसपरभरोसाकिया। बीरेंद्रकिशोरमाणिक्यबनाम।भारतकेराज्यसचिव, ( 1920 ) आई. एल. आर. 48 कैल.766 , मेहरबानोखानमबनाम।भारतकेराज्यसचिव, (1925) आई. एल. आर. 53कैल.34 , राजाराजेंद्रनारायणणभंजदेवबनाम।आयकरआयुक्त, (1929) आई. एल. आर. 9 पटट।1 औरआयकरआयुक्तv.के. सी. मानविक्रमणणराजा, आई. एल. आर. 1945 मैड।837 , प्रतिष्ठित। नतीजतन, जहांकुछजमींदारनिर्धारकोंद्वाराकृषिपट्टोंकोदेनेकेलिएविचारकेरूपमेंभुगतानकोसलामीकेरूपमेंवर्णितकियागयाथाऔरप्राप्तकियागयाथा, किसीभीअनिश्चितप्रकृतिकेमाध्यमसे, (1) [1946] 1 सभीई. आर. 546 थे।( 2 ) [ 1947 ] 1 सभीई. आर. 608. सर्वोच्चन्यायालयकीरिपोर्ट 1020 [ 1957 ] 1957 सभीऐसेअनुदानोंसेपहलेकिएगएथेऔरएकगैर-आवर्तीचरित्रकेथे, लेकिनकीप्रकृतिकेसाथअलग-अलगदरोंपरगणणनाकीगईथी भूमिकेलिएसदस्यऔरप्रत्येकबादकीबेदखलीऔरफिरसेकिराएपरदेनेपरप्रभार्य, उनकाठीकसेवर्णनकियागयाथाऔरवेनतोकिराएपरथेऔरनहीराजस्व। बोर्डऑफ मेंनिहितकृषिआयकीपरिभाषाकेभीतर कृषि -एस.2 ( क) असमकृषिआयकरअधिनियमका(1) औरआयकरकरसकताहै, असम अधिनियमकेतहतकरकाआकलननहींकियाजाएगा। सिविलअपीलीयन्यायनिर्णयःदीवानीअपीलें.श्रीमतीसिंधहुरानीनं.162 1955 का38,39,40,41,42,43 और1956 का44। चौधरीरानी जनवरीकेफैसलेऔरआदेशकेखिलाफअपील 5 , 1953 , कलकत्ताउच्चन्यायालय(मूलपक्ष) में1942 कीआयकरसंदर्भअपीलसं. 12 और2 जुलाईकेनिर्णयऔरआदेशसेअपील,1952 , एग्रीमेंगुवाहाटीमेंअसमउच्चन्यायालयसांस्कृतिकआयकरसंदर्भसं।1 , 2 , 3 , 7 , 9 , 6 औरक्रमशः1949 का8.अपीलार्थीगणणकेलिएवेदव्यासऔरनौनीतलाल1955 कासी. ए. सं. 162 औरसी. ए. एस. मेंप्रत्यर्थीगणण।नं.38 1956 44 तक।का आर. बक्शी, एस. एन. मुखर्जीऔरआर. आर. बिस्वास सी. केरूपमें।नं.38 41, 43 और44 सी. एफ. 1956 तक। 1956 कीसी. ए. सं. 42 मेंअपीलार्थीकाप्रतिनिधित्वनहींकियागया। 1957. 24 अप्रैल।न्यायालयकानिर्णयथाद्वारावितरितकियागया . --जेकपूरइनसभीअपीलोंमेंप्रश्नइसप्रकारहै काबूरजे। निर्णयभुगतानकाचरित्रऔरउद्देश्यहै।'' सलामीकहाजाताहैऔरक्यायहइसकेअंतर्गतआताहै"आय" मेंपरिभाषितकृषिकाअर्थ असमकृषिआयकरअधिनियम(ए. एस.) 1939 काIX)"" इसकेबादइसेअधिनियमकहाजाताहै। 1955 कासी. ए. सं. 162 निर्णयकेविरुद्धनिर्देशितहै।कलकत्ताउच्चन्यायालयकादिनांक15 जनवरी,1953. सी. ए. सं.38 1956 का44 लायागयाहैअसमउच्चन्यायालयकेफैसलेकेखिलाफदिनांकित 2 अप्रैल, 1952।इनसभीमामलोंकोएकसाथसुनागया।असमउच्चन्यायालयमेंऔरएकद्वारानिपटायागयाथानिर्णय। 1955 कासी. ए. सं. 162 निर्धारणणवर्षसेसंबंधितहै।1941-42 .उसमामलेमेंनिर्धारितीए-/ 8/9 वर्षथाएससीआर। सर्वोच्चन्यायालयकीरिपोर्ट 1021 "" -परबतजोआरकेनामसेजानीजानेवालीजमींदारीसंपत्तिमेंसहभागीदार 1957 ""असममेंसंपत्ति।मूलनिर्धारितीज्योतिंद्रथे।नारायणणचौधरीजिनका25 जनवरी, 1953 कोनिधनहोगया, बोर्डकेसदस्यथे। पर उनकीमृत्युउनकीविधवाश्रीमतीसिंधुरानीनेकी। कृषि चौधरीरानीऔरअन्यकोप्रतिस्थापितकियागया।सकल। आयकर, असमवी.निर्धारितीकीकृषिआयरु।89,633 और 9.331-9-4 सलामीसेआयरु।कौनसाथा .श्रीमतीसिंधुरानी414 विभिन्नजोतोंकेनिपटानसेप्राप्त चौधरीरानी 278 136जिनमेंसेकुंवारीभूमिकेस्वामित्वमेंथेऔर-जिन्हेंनीलामीखरीदकेरूपमेंवर्णितकियागयाहै कपूरजे। 15 भूमि।सलामीसेसकलआयमेंसेप्रतिप्रतिशत।संग्रहशुल्ककेरूपमेंअनुमतिदीगईहैऔरइसलिएइसअपीलमेंविवादग्रस्तराशिरु।7,934 .-कृषिआयकरअधिकारीनेयहराशिनिर्धारितकी"आय" नवंबरकेउनकेआदेशकेअनुसारकृषिहोनाचाहिए पर10,1941, जिसेअपीलपरपुष्टिकीगईथी सहायककृषिआयकरआयुक्त। Case: THE MEMBER FOR THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX, ASSAM versus SMT. SINDHURANI CHAUDHURANI [[1957] 1 S.C.R. 1019] (1957) We are of opinion that the principles bid down in Northern Aluminium Co., Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners( 1) and fo!cmd Revenue Commissioners v. ··N orthem Aluminium Co., Ltd.( [2 ]) are applicable to the decision of the present case, and that a contingent liability in respect of unexpired risk is not an "accruing liability" within r. 2 of Sch. II to the Act. The decision appealed from is correct, and this appeal must accordingly be dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. THE MEMBER FOR THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX, ASSAM v. SMT. SINDHURANI CHAUDHURANI (with connected appeals) (BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR and J. L. KAPUR J. L. KAPUR J J.) Salami-lndicia--lf capital rrceipt-Liability to agricultural income-tax-Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act (Assam IX of 1939), s. 2(a) (i). The true indicia of salami are ( 1) its single. nonrecurring character and (2) payment prior to the cre.'.ltion of the tenancy. It is the consideration paid by the tenant for being let into po'session and can be neither rent nor re\'enue but is a capital receipt in the hands of the landlord. Kamakshya Narain Singh v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (l<J43) L.R. 70 I.A. 180, relied on. Case-law reviewed. Rire11dra Kisliore ManikYa v. Secretary of State for India, (1920) l.L.R. 48 Cal. 766, Meher Bono Khanum v. Secretary of State for India, (1925) 1.L.R. 53 CaL 34, Raja Rajendra Narayan Bhanja Deo v. Commissioner af Income Tax, (1929) l.L.R. 9 Pat. 1 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. K. C. Manavikraman Rajah, I.LR. 1945 Mad. 837, distin~ished. Consequently, where payments described· as salamis and recci\'ed by cert3in zamindar assessecs as consideration for grant-ing agricultural leases, by no means of a precarious nature, were (1) (1946] I All E.R. 546. (2) [19471 1 All E.R. 608. 1957 The Cammissioner qf Excess Profits Tax, West Bengalv T lit Ruby General J,.,uronce Co. Ltd. V enkalarama Aryar ]. 1957 April 24 Thi Memh1r for th.I Board of ~griculturol In.come TIU, .Assam v. Smt. Sindhurani Chaudhurani all made prior to such grants and were of a non-recurring character, but calculated at rates varying with the nature of the lands and chargeable on every subsequent eviction and re-letting, they were properly so described and were neither rent nor revenue within the definition of 'agricultural income' contained in s. 2(a) (I) of the Assam Agricultural Income-Tax Act and could not be assessed to tax under the Act. CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 162 of 1955, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 of 1956. Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 5, 1953, of the Calcutta High Court (Original Side) in Income Tax Reference Appeal No. 12 of 1942 and appeals from the judgment and order dated July 2, 1952, of the Assam High Court at Gauhati in Agri-cultural Income Tax References Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 6 and 8 of 1949 respec_tively. Veda Vyasa and Nau nit Lal, for the appellants in C. A. No. 162 of 1955 and respondents in C. As. Nos. 38 to 44 of 1956. R. Bak;i, S. N. Mukerjee and R. R. Biswas, for the respondents in C. A. No. lq2 of 1955 and appellants in C. As. Nos. 38 to 41, 43 and 44 cf 1956. Appellant in C. A. No. 42 of 1956 not represented. 1957. April 24. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPVR · J.-In all these appeals the question for decision is the character and purport of the payment termed 'Salami' and whether it falls within the meaning of "agricultural income" as defined in the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act (Ass. IX of 1939) hereinafter called the "Act". C. A. No. 162 of 1955 is directed against the judg-ment of the Calcutta High Court dated January 15, 1953. C. A. Nos. 38 to 44 of 1956 have been brought against the judgment of Assam High Court dated April 2, 1952. These matters were all heard together in the Assam High Court and were disposed of by one judgment. C. A. No. 162 of 1955 relates to the assessment year 1941-42. The assessee in that case was a -/8/9 annas Case: THE MEMBER FOR THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX, ASSAM versus SMT. SINDHURANI CHAUDHURANI [[1957] 1 S.C.R. 1019] (1957) आयकर, असमवी.निर्धारितीकीकृषिआयरु।89,633 और 9.331-9-4 सलामीसेआयरु।कौनसाथा .श्रीमतीसिंधुरानी414 विभिन्नजोतोंकेनिपटानसेप्राप्त चौधरीरानी 278 136जिनमेंसेकुंवारीभूमिकेस्वामित्वमेंथेऔर-जिन्हेंनीलामीखरीदकेरूपमेंवर्णितकियागयाहै कपूरजे। 15 भूमि।सलामीसेसकलआयमेंसेप्रतिप्रतिशत।संग्रहशुल्ककेरूपमेंअनुमतिदीगईहैऔरइसलिएइसअपीलमेंविवादग्रस्तराशिरु।7,934 .-कृषिआयकरअधिकारीनेयहराशिनिर्धारितकी"आय" नवंबरकेउनकेआदेशकेअनुसारकृषिहोनाचाहिए पर10,1941, जिसेअपीलपरपुष्टिकीगईथी सहायककृषिआयकरआयुक्त। 27 एसकेतहतआयुक्तकोलियागयासंशोधन।मेंसेअधिनियमकोखारिजकरदियागयाथालेकिनगधोंकेकहनेपरदेखेंकिनिम्नलिखितदोप्रश्नोंकेलिएसंदर्भितकियागयाथाउच्चन्यायालयकीराय। -( 1 ) चाहेएकलगैरआवर्तीप्रीमियाहोया मकानमालिकनिर्धारितीकोकेवलएकबारभुगतानकीजानेवालीसलामीकृषिभूमिकेनिपटानकेलिएविचारपट्टादेनेकेसमयकोआयमानाजासकताहै। ?अधिनियमकेअर्थकेभीतर -( 2 ) चाहेएकलगैरआवर्तीप्रीमियाहोयासलामी मकानमालिकनिर्धारितीकोप्रतिफलकेरूपमेंभुगतानकियागया उससमयकेवलएकबारकृषिभूमिकानिपटान पट्टादेनेकेलिएजबऐसेप्रीमियमयासलामीनहींहोतेहैं प्रभारितकिराएकीदरकेआधारपर, रखाजासकताहै ?आयअधिनियमकेअर्थकेभीतरहोगी कलकत्ताउच्चन्यायालयनेअपनेदिनांकितनिर्णयद्वारा 12 अप्रैल, 1945 कोइनप्राप्तियोंको"कृषिआय" मानागया।इसनिर्णयकेखिलाफप्रिवीकाउंसिलमेंएकअपीलकीगईथी, लेकिनप्रिवीकाउंसिलकेन्यायशास्त्रशब्दकोसमाप्तकरनेपरअपीलकोसंघीयन्यायालयमेंस्थानांतरितकरदियागयाथाऔरउसअदालतद्वारा1949 केसी. ए. नंबर30 केरूपमेंसुनवाईकीगईथी।उसअदालतनेउच्चन्यायालयकेफैसले"कोदरकिनारकरदियाऔरमामलेकोउच्चन्यायालयकोभेजदियानिम्नलिखितअतिरिक्तकारकोंकापतालगानेऔरउन1022परविचारकरनेकेबादफिरसेनिपटाजाए सर्वोच्चन्यायालयकीरिपोर्ट [ 1957 ] केरूपमेंवर्णितप्राप्तियोंकीवास्तविकप्रकृतिकोदिखानेकेलिए 1957 वर्तमानमामलेमेंसलामी। सदस्यकेलिए "1. बंजरभूमिकेनिपटानकीसंख्याऔर बोर्डऑफ कृषि लेखावर्षऔरआयकर, असमकेदौरानछोड़ीगईहिस्सेदारी अधिकतमऔरन्यूनतमसीमातयकीगईऔर सलामीमिली। .श्रीमतीसिंधुरानी 2. -?क्यासलामीकीगुणणवत्ताअलगअलगहोतीहै चौधरीरानी भूमि, सिंचाईकीसुविधाएँऔरइसतरहकेअन्य कपूरजे। ?अनुकूलकारक 3. 69 लेखावर्षकेदौरानधाराकेतहतकितनेकिरायेदारोंकोनिकालागयाऔरइसतरहकीबेदखलीसेपहलेवेकितने?समयसेकब्जेमेंथे ?निष्कासन 5. क्यासलामीकाभुगताननिर्धारितीकीजमींदारीमेंकिरायेदारद्वाराभूमिपरकब्जाकरनेकीअनुमतिकेलिएमकान'' मालिककोदिएगएउपहारकेरूपमेंकियाजाताहैयाक्यायहवास्तवमेंकिरायेदारीकीशुरुआतमेंपट्टेदारद्वारादेय?प्रीमियमहै रिमांडकेबादमामलेकोफिरसेकहागया असमकृषिआयबोर्डकेसदस्य . कर।डॉगोस्वामीऔरइनप्रश्नोंकेउत्तर येथेः 1. बस्तियोंकीकुलसंख्या414 थी, अधिकतमसीमा59 बीघा2 कोटाऔर10 धुरऔरसलामीरु।161-8-61 और15 2-11- 9 . 2.न्यूनतमसीमाकोट्टाथीऔरउससेसलामीरु।सलामीकीदरगुणणवत्ताकेअनुसारबदलतीरहतीहै।भूमि, दोनिश्चितदरेंरु।7 वनभूमिकेलिएप्रतिबीघाऔररु।10 गैर-वनभूमिकेलिएप्रतिबीघा।3. धाराकेतहतकिरायेदारोंकोबेदखलनहींकियागयाथा 69 गोलपाराकिरायेदारीअधिनियम, लेकिनकार्रवाईकीगईथी 68 धाराकेतहतबड़ीसंख्यामेंमामलोंमेंलियागया वहअधिनियम। 4. सलामीकाएहसासतबहोताहैजबभूमिकोउसकेबादफिरसेदियाजाताहै। निष्कासन। 5. सलामीउपहारकीप्रकृतिमेंनहींहै।यहकिरायेदारद्वारामकानमालिककोअनिवार्यभुगतानहै। किरायेदारीकीशुरुआतमें। . . आर. मामलेकेबयानमेंबोर्डनेकहाकिजमींदारकाव्यवसाययाव्यवसायएससीकीहिस्सेदारीकोपट्टेपरदेनाथा। सर्वोच्चन्यायालयकीरिपोर्ट 1023 1957 भुगतानकेखिलाफ।उसकेपासभूमिकाएकबड़ाक्षेत्रथाजिसेवहविभिन्नकिरायेदारोंकोइसशर्तपरटुकड़ोंमेंदेताहैकि'' भावीकिरायेदारपहलेएकशुल्ककाभुगतानकरेगाजिसेवहसलामीकहनापसंदकरेगाऔरवहएकवार्षिककिरायादेगा।इसनेमानाकियहभुगतान"अप्रत्याशित" नहींथा, कि कृषिआयकरबोर्ड, असमकीसदस्यश्रीमती.सिंधुरानीचौधरी .वी " सलामी'मकानमालिककेअपनीभूमिकोपट्टेपरदेनेकेव्यवसायसेउत्पन्नहुई, और।एकआयहै", किसलामीकीप्राप्तिसेजुड़ी" नियमिततायाआवधिकता" केकारणण", यहआयकीकसौटीकोसंतुष्टकरतीहै"औरइसलिएसलामीकेरूपमेंप्राप्तराशिएसकेभीतर" कृषिआय"थी।2 ( क) अधिनियमकीधारा(1)। कपूरजे। इसमामलेमेंबोर्डद्वारापाएगएतथ्योंपरविचारकरनेऔरविभिन्नअदालतोंकेरिपोर्टकिएगएफैसलोंकेसंदर्भकेबाद, "आय" कलकत्ताउच्चन्यायालयनेकहाकिनिर्धारितीद्वारासलामीकेरूपमेंप्राप्तराशिकृषिनहींथीऔरबोर्डनेउसफैसलेकेखिलाफयहअपील(1955 कासी. ए. संख्या162) कीहै। Case: THE MEMBER FOR THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX, ASSAM versus SMT. SINDHURANI CHAUDHURANI [[1957] 1 S.C.R. 1019] (1957) C. A. No. 162 of 1955 is directed against the judg-ment of the Calcutta High Court dated January 15, 1953. C. A. Nos. 38 to 44 of 1956 have been brought against the judgment of Assam High Court dated April 2, 1952. These matters were all heard together in the Assam High Court and were disposed of by one judgment. C. A. No. 162 of 1955 relates to the assessment year 1941-42. The assessee in that case was a -/8/9 annas co-sharer in a zamindari estate known as "Parbatjoar estate" in Assam. The original assessee was Jyotindra Narayan Chowdhury who died on January 25, 1953, and on his death his widow, Shrimati Sindhurani Chowdhurani and others were substituted. The gross agricultural income of the assessee was Rs. 89,633 and income from salami was Rs. 9.331-9-4 which was received from settlement of 414 different holdings out of which 278 were holdings of virgin lands and 136 were those of what are described as auction-purchase lands. Out of the gross income from salami 15 per cent. has been allowed as collection charges and the amount in dispute in this appeal therefore is Rs. 7,934. The Agricultural Income Tax Officer held this sum to be "ag~icultural income" by his order dated Novem-ber 10, 1941, which was affirmed on appeal to the A:sist:mt Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax. The revision taken to the Commissioner under s. 27 of the Act was dismissed but at the instance of the asses-sec the following two questions were referred for the opinion of the High Court. ( 1) Whether the single non-recurring premia or salamis paid to the landlord assessee once only as consideration for the settlement of agricultural land at the time of granting a lease can be held to be income within the meaning of the Act) (2) Whether single non-recurring premia· or salamis paiLl to the landlord assessee as consideration for the settlement of agricultural land once only at the time of granting lease when such premia or salamis are not dependent on the rate of rent charged, can be held to be income within the meaning of the Act? The Calcutta High Court by its judgment dated April 12, 1945, held these receipts to be "agricultural income." Against this judgment an appeal was taken to the Privy Council but on the abolition of the juris-diction of the Privy Council the appeal was transferred to the Federal Court and was heard by that court as C. A. No. 30 of 1949. That court set aside the judg-ment of the High Court and remitted the case to the High Court "to be dealt with again after ascertaining and considering the following additional factors likely 1957 TltliMembtr fo(tltl BMrd of Agriadtu ral lr1&ome Tax, AJSam v. Smt. Sindhura.i C/;audhurani Kapur}. 1957 The ll!imber for tM Board /)f Agricultural Income Tax, AsJam v Smt. Sindhurani Chaudhurani Kapu' ]. 1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19571 to show the true nature of the receipts described as salami in the present case. "l. The number of settlement of waste lands and abandoned holdings during the . accounting year and the maximum and the minimum extel)ts settled and salami received. 2. Does the salami vary with the quality of the land, the facilities for irrigation and such other fa vourabie factors? 3. How many tenants ejected under section 69 during the accounting year ;ind how long they had been in occupation before such eviction? 4. Is salami received when lands are relet after eviction? 5. Is salami that is paid in the zamindary of the assessee in the nature of a 'present' given by the tenant to the landlord for the permission to occupy the land or whether it is in substance a premium payable by lessee at the inception of the tenancv ?" After the remand the case was again stated by the Member of Assam Board of Agricultural Income Tax, Dr. Goswami, and answers to these questions were: Case: THE MEMBER FOR THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX, ASSAM versus SMT. SINDHURANI CHAUDHURANI [[1957] 1 S.C.R. 1019] (1957) .वी " सलामी'मकानमालिककेअपनीभूमिकोपट्टेपरदेनेकेव्यवसायसेउत्पन्नहुई, और।एकआयहै", किसलामीकीप्राप्तिसेजुड़ी" नियमिततायाआवधिकता" केकारणण", यहआयकीकसौटीकोसंतुष्टकरतीहै"औरइसलिएसलामीकेरूपमेंप्राप्तराशिएसकेभीतर" कृषिआय"थी।2 ( क) अधिनियमकीधारा(1)। कपूरजे। इसमामलेमेंबोर्डद्वारापाएगएतथ्योंपरविचारकरनेऔरविभिन्नअदालतोंकेरिपोर्टकिएगएफैसलोंकेसंदर्भकेबाद, "आय" कलकत्ताउच्चन्यायालयनेकहाकिनिर्धारितीद्वारासलामीकेरूपमेंप्राप्तराशिकृषिनहींथीऔरबोर्डनेउसफैसलेकेखिलाफयहअपील(1955 कासी. ए. संख्या162) कीहै। "" असमअपीलोंमेंभीनिर्धारितीद्वाराधारितभूमिकाक्षेत्रबड़ाथाऔरपर्बतजोआरसंपदाकेमामलेमेंकुलआयरु।-1,15,510 औरमेचपाराएस्टेटटकेमामलेमेंयहरु।2,82,106 जोविभिन्नसहभागीदारोंकेबीचविभाज्यथा।7 10 परबतजोआरएस्टेटटमेंसलामीकीदरेंरुपयेसेभिन्नथीं।वनभूमिकेलिएप्रतिबीघारु।अन्यभूमिकेलिएप्रतिबीघा1 . तक।2 भूमिकीगुणणवत्तापरनिर्भरकरताहै।मेचपाराएस्टेटटमेंपहाड़ीइलाकोंमेंदरेंरुपयेथीं।रुअच्छीसालीभूमिके1 . तक।6 2 . तक।3 लिएऔररे।रुभूमिकेअन्यवर्गकेलिएऔरमैदानीइलाकोंमेंवेरुपयेसेभिन्नथे।रुअच्छीसालीभूमिकेलिए, औररे।1 रु. तक।6 अन्यभूमिकेलिएऔरए. एस.8 सेरे।1 नवगठितचारभूमिकेलिए।बिजनीराजमें { . 1 एस्टेटटमेंन्यूनतमसलामीरुथी।भूमिकेक्षेत्रफलकीपरवाहकिएबिनाप्रतिबीघा।गौरीपुरएस्टेटटमेंजोतोंकानिपटाननीलामीद्वाराकियाजाताथाऔरसलामीकीराशिभूमिकीगुणणवत्ताऔरसिंचाईकीसुविधाओंकेआधारपरमांगद्वारानिर्धारितकीजातीथी।इसीतरहचैप्टटरट्रस्टटमेंसंपत्तिकानिपटाननीलामीद्वाराकियागयाथा।उच्चन्यायालयकानिष्कर्ष"1024 यहथाःउपरोक्ततथ्योंसेयहबहुतस्पष्टहैकिसलामीकीदरेंगुणणवत्ताकेसाथभिन्नहोतीहैं। सर्वोच्चन्यायालयकीरिपोर्ट -[ 1957 ] 1957 प्रत्येकभूभागमेंभूमि।उनकाकिराएसेकोईसंबंधनहींहै। जोनिश्चितरूपसेस्थिरऔरअपरिवर्तनीयहै। सदस्यकेलिए .भूमिआमतौरपरछोटेभूखंडोंमेंबसाईजातीहै।द बोर्डऑफ जिनवर्षोंसेहमारासंबंधहै, उनमेंएकहीलेन-देनमेंसलामीकेरूपमेंप्राप्तउच्चतमआंकड़ाथा कृषि आयकर, असम . 621 परबतजोआर।रुकीराशि।एपरप्राप्तकियागयाथा मेचपारामें88 बी., 14 के., 15 डी. मापनेवालेक्षेत्रकानिपटान165 बी., 16 के., 12 डी. मापनेवालेक्षेत्रको.318. -2 . . रुएकलेनदेनमेंतयकिएगएक्षेत्रकान्यूनतमविस्तारमेचपारामेंभीथा।केवलकिमीकीभूमिबसाईगईथी।3-5-0 .सलामीकोरुपयेमिले।इनदोचरमसीमाओंकेबीचकीसीमा .श्रीमतीसिंधाराणी चौधरीरानी कपूरजे। -बसेहुएक्षेत्रअलगअलगहोतेहैं। एसकेतहतकोईबेदखलीनहींहुई।69 गैर-अधिभोगकिरायेदारोंकेअसमकिरायेदारीअधिनियमकेतहत, लेकिन68 निष्कासनहुआऔरधाराओंकेतहतकार्रवाईकीगई।अधिनियमसे।संघीयन्यायालयद्वारासुझाएगएआधारपरमामले केपुनर्विवेचनकेबाद, असमउच्चन्यायालयनेकहाकि"सलामी" किरायानहींहै, बल्किभूमिसेप्राप्तराजस्वहैऔरइसलिएआयहै।3) निर्णयकेलिएसवालयहहैकिक्यासलामीकेरूपमेंप्राप्तराशि"कृषिआय" कीपरिभाषाकेभीतरकिरायायाराजस्वहैऔरइसलिए -आयकृषिकरकेलिएउत्तरदायी। मईकेपहलेकलकत्तानिर्णयकाआधार 12 , 1945 , 1955 केसी. ए. सं. 162 मेंयहकहागयाथाकिसलामीइनसंपदाओंकीएकसामान्यऔरनियमितविशेषताथीऔरइसमेंआवधिकताथी।जबमामलासंघीयन्यायालयमेंअपीलमेंआयातोविद्वानमुख्यन्यायाधीशकीरायथीकिसलामीकहलजानेवालीरसीदकोयदिइसकेसंबंधमेंऔरकुछनहींकहागयाहैतोइसेपूंजीरसीदकेरूपमेंनहींमानाजासकताहैऔरइसलिएइसेकराधानसेछूटटनहींदीजासकतीहैऔरनहीइसेकेवलआयकेरूपमेंमानाजा-"सकताहैऔरवहांआयकरकेलिएपूर्वनिर्धारितकियाजासकताहै।महाजनजे. (जैसाकिवेउससमयथे) नेकहाःयह-एकआवर्तीयाआवधिकभुगतानहोसकताहैयदियहकिरायामुक्तकार्यकालकेधारकपरवार्षिकरूपसेलगायाजानेवालाशुल्कयाजुर्मानाहै, तोदूसरीओर, यहआवधिकभुगतानयाआवर्तीभुगताननहींहोसकताहैयदियहपट्टप्राप्तकरनेयाराजस्वकेलिएनिपटानयाकोईवास्तविकयानिहितपक्षप्राप्तकरनेपरउपदानयापेशकशकेरूपमेंहै।उनकीरायथी1किपहलेकेमामलेमेंयहकृषिहोगी एससीआर। सर्वोच्चन्यायालयकीरिपोर्ट 1025 आयलेकिनबादकेमामलेमेंयहएकपूंजीहोगी 1957 रसीदउसछोटीसीराशिकीकीमतहै। सदस्यकेलिए स्वामित्वजिसेमकानमालिककिरायेदारकोहस्तांतरितकरताहै। बोर्डऑफ कृषि . असमकेमामलोंमेंजेरामलाभयानेकहाकि आयकर, असम भूमिकानिपटानकरनाऔरमकानमालिककोसलामीस्वीकारकरना। .वी तत्कालकब्जेकेअधिकारवालेभाग। श्रीमती.सिंधुरानी] चौधरीकपूरजे। "" मामलोंकेबयानोंसेप्रकटटसलामीकीविशेषताएँऔरघटटनाएँयहहैंकियहएकमकानमालिकद्वारास्वामित्वकानिपटानकरनेसेपहलेएककिरायेदारसेधनकीएकमुश्तगैर-आवर्तीप्राप्तिहै, जो1955 कीसी. ए. संख्या162 मेंरु.7 . तक।10 11 रुप्रतिबीघाऔरअन्यमामलोंमेंकमथा।वहप्रतिवर्षआनाप्रतिबीघाकीएकनिश्चितआवधिकराशिलेने काभीहकदारहै।सलामीकाशुल्कतबलियाजाताहैजबकभीभीएकनयासमझौताकियाजाताहै, चाहेवहवर्जिनभूमि-केटुकड़ेकाहोयानीलामीखरीदहोल्डिंगका।इसप्रकारसलामीएककिरायेदारद्वारामकानमालिककोभुगतानहै। मकानमालिकऔरकिरायेदारकेसंबंधकेगठनकापूर्र्ती।यहवास्तवमेंएकभुगतानहै Case: THE MEMBER FOR THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX, ASSAM versus SMT. SINDHURANI CHAUDHURANI [[1957] 1 S.C.R. 1019] (1957) 5. Is salami that is paid in the zamindary of the assessee in the nature of a 'present' given by the tenant to the landlord for the permission to occupy the land or whether it is in substance a premium payable by lessee at the inception of the tenancv ?" After the remand the case was again stated by the Member of Assam Board of Agricultural Income Tax, Dr. Goswami, and answers to these questions were: 1. Total number of settlements were 414, maxi-mum extent being 59 bighas 2 Cottahs and 10 Dhurs, and salami Rs. 161-8-0! and minimum extent was 15 Cottahs and salami received therefrom Rs. 2-11-9. 2. Rate of salami varies with the quality of the lands, two fixed rates being Rs. 7 per bigha for jungle lands and Rs. 10 per bigha for non-jungle lands. 3. There was no eviction of tenants under section 69 of the Goalpara Tenancy Act. but action was taken in a large number of cases under section 68 of that Act. 4. Salami is realized when lands are relet after eviction. 5. Salami is not in the nature of a present. It is a compulsory payment by the tenant to the landlord at the inception of the tenancy. In the Statement of the Case the Board said that the zamindar's business or vocation was letting out holdings against payment. The area of land held by him was a large one "which he lets out piecemeal to various tenants on conditions among others that the would-be teµant will first pay a fee which he prefers to call 'salami' and that he will pay an annual rent." It held that this payment was not "a windfall", that t!ie "'salami' arose from the landlord's business of letting out his lands, and .......... is an income'', that because of the "regularity or periodicity" attached to the receipt of salami, "it satisfies the test of 'income' " and therefore the amounts received as salami were "agricultural income" within s. 2 (a) ( 1) of the Act. On a consideration of the facts found by the Board in this case and after reference to the reported judg-ments of the various courts, the Calcutta High Court held that the amounts received by the .assessee as salami were not "agricultural income" and the Board has brought this appeal (C. A. No. 162 of 1955) against that judgment. In the Assam Appeals also the areas of land held by the assessees were large and total income in the case of "Parbatjoar estate" was Rs. 1,15,510 and in the case of Mechpara estate it was Rs. 2,82,106 which was divisible amongst the various co-sharers. Salami rates in Parbatjoar estate varied from Rs. 7 per bigha for forest land to Rs. 10 per bigha for other lands depend-ing upon the quality of the land. In Mechpara estate the rates in hilly tracts were Re. 1 to Rs. 2 for good sali land and Re. 1 to Rs. 6 for other class of land and in the plains they varied from Rs. 2 to Rs. 3 for good sali land, and Re. 1 to Rs. 6 for other lands and As. 8 to Re. 1 for newly formed Char lands. In Bijni Raj estate the minimum salami was Rs. 1 per bigha irrespective of the area of the land. In Gauripur estate the holdings were settled by auction and the amount of salami was determined by the demand, depending upon the quality of land and facilities for irrigation. Similarly in the Chapter Trust estate holdings were settled by auction. The finding of the High Court was: "It is . abundantly clear from the above statement of facts that the rates of salami vary with the quality 1957 Tht mtmber for the Boart! of Agricullural Incomt Tax, Assam v Smt. Sindhurani Chaut!hurani Kapur]. 1957 Till Mtmb,, for 1111 B°"'"of Agrialll....Z Inconw Tu, As.ram v. Sm/. Sindlitrani Chowlhurani KaJJl'T j. 1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1957} of la!ld in each estate. They have no relation to rent which is admittedly fixed and invariable. Case: THE MEMBER FOR THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX, ASSAM versus SMT. SINDHURANI CHAUDHURANI [[1957] 1 S.C.R. 1019] (1957) "" मामलोंकेबयानोंसेप्रकटटसलामीकीविशेषताएँऔरघटटनाएँयहहैंकियहएकमकानमालिकद्वारास्वामित्वकानिपटानकरनेसेपहलेएककिरायेदारसेधनकीएकमुश्तगैर-आवर्तीप्राप्तिहै, जो1955 कीसी. ए. संख्या162 मेंरु.7 . तक।10 11 रुप्रतिबीघाऔरअन्यमामलोंमेंकमथा।वहप्रतिवर्षआनाप्रतिबीघाकीएकनिश्चितआवधिकराशिलेने काभीहकदारहै।सलामीकाशुल्कतबलियाजाताहैजबकभीभीएकनयासमझौताकियाजाताहै, चाहेवहवर्जिनभूमि-केटुकड़ेकाहोयानीलामीखरीदहोल्डिंगका।इसप्रकारसलामीएककिरायेदारद्वारामकानमालिककोभुगतानहै। मकानमालिकऔरकिरायेदारकेसंबंधकेगठनकापूर्र्ती।यहवास्तवमेंएकभुगतानहै पट्टाकेतहतखेतीकेलिएभूमिपरकब्जाकरनेकीअनुमतिदेनेकेलिएमकानमालिककोकिरायेदार।अपीलकेतहतउनसभीमामलोंमेंपट्टेमौखिकथेऔरउनकीअवधिऔरशर्तोंकोविनियमितकियागयाथा -क़ानूनअसमकिरायेदारीअधिनियम।सलामीआवर्तीयाआवधिकभुगतानयाकिरायेदारसेउसीहिस्सेदारीकेलिएनिश्चितअंतरालपरलगायाजानेवालाशुल्कयाजुर्मानानहींहै।इनमामलोंमेंयहतर्कनहींदियागयाहैयायहांतककि सुझावदियागयाऔरनहीसंघीयन्यायालयकेसमक्षयहतर्कदियागयाकिसलामीपूंजीकृतकिरायाहै।वास्तवमेंसंघीयन्यायालयनेपायाकियहकिरायानहींथा।सलामीकेभुगतानकेविचारमेंभूमिमेंएकसंपत्तिमकानमालिकद्वाराहस्तांतरितकीजातीहै। यद्यपिपहलेमेंकिरायेदारद्वारालीगईसंपत्ति -उदाहरणणएकगैरअधिभोगकिरायेदारीहैजोसमयकेप्रवाहसेएकअधिभोगकिरायेदारीमेंबढ़तीहै।लेकिनकिसीभी69 मामलेमेंकिसीभीअपीलकेतहतकार्रवाईनहींकीगई।असमकिरायेदारीअधिनियमजोविनियमितकरताहै --गैरअधिभोगकिरायेदारोंऔरकिसीभीकिरायेदारकेअधिकारोंऔरदेनदारियोंकोउसकीगैरअधिभोगकिरायेदारीसेहटादियागयाथा।दूसरीओरजबभीकार्रवाईकरनीपड़ी 1026 किरायाऔरनिकासीकाभुगताननकरनेकेलिएलियागयाथा। सर्वोच्चन्यायालयकीरिपोर्ट [ 1957 ] 1957 एसकेतहत।68 गोलपाराकिरायेदारीअधिनियम।यहखंड यहइसप्रकारहैः सदस्यकेलिए एकस्थायीकार्यकाल-धारक, निश्चितदरोंपरएकरैयत, याएकअधिभोगकिरायेदार, किराएकेबकायाकेलिएनिष्कासनकेलिएउत्तरदायीनहींहोगा, लेकिनउसकाकार्यकालयाहोल्डिंगउसकेकिराएकेलिएएकडिक्रीकेनिष्पादनमेंबिक्रीकेलिएउत्तरदायीहोगा, औरकिरायाउसपरपहलाशुल्कहोगा।किराएकेबकायाकेलिएफरमानोंकेनिष्पादनमेंअधिभोगकिरायेदारोंकीसंपत्तियोंकोबेचदियाजाताथा, सभीमामलोंमेंखरीदारखुदमकानमालिकहोताथाऔरइसप्रकारकिराएकेबकायाकीवसूलीकेलिएमकानमालिककोअपनेकिरायेदारकेअधिकार, स्वामित्वऔरब्याजकोबेचनेकेलिएलानापड़ताथाऔरइसअधिकारकोखरीदनेकेबादवहनएकिरायेदारसेसलामीप्राप्तकरनेपरभूमिकोबेचदेताथा।यहप्रक्रिया बोर्डऑफ कृषि आयकर, असम .श्रीमतीसिंधुरानी चौधरीरानी कपूरजे। यहफिरसेदर्शाताहैकिमकानमालिकनेकुछकेसाथभागलियाथा भूमिमेंब्याज, जिसेअनिश्चितनहींकहाजासकताहै, जबउन्होंनेप्राप्तहोनेपरभूमिकानिपटानकिया सलामी, जोपट्टेदारद्वारापट्टेकेतहतअपनेअधिकारोंकेअधिग्रहणणकेलिएएकएकलगैर-आवर्तीभुगतानथा।बोर्डद्वारादावाकियागयाहैकिकृषिआयमेंसलामीशामिलहै, जिसेएसमेंपरिभाषितकियागयाहै।2 ( (क) अधिनियमकीधारा।इसखंडकाप्रासंगिकभागइसप्रकारहैः एस. 2 (ए) (आई)।भूमिसेप्राप्तकोईकिरायायाराजस्वजिसकाउपयोगकृषिउद्देश्योंकेलिएकियाजाताहै, और असममेंभूमिराजस्वकाआकलनयासरकारकेअधिकारियोंद्वारामूल्यांकनऔरएकत्रकीगईस्थानीयदरकेअधीन। सलामीकिरायानहींहैऔरइसलिए, जबतकयहराजस्वनहींहै, यहइसपरिभाषाकेअंतर्गतनहींआएगा।" आय"कावर्णनसरजॉर्जलॉन्डेसनेआयकरआयुक्तबनाममेंकियाथा।शॉवालेसएंडकंपनी(1) "नियमितता, या" अपेक्षितनियमितताकेसाथआनेवालेआवधिकमौद्रिकरिटटर्नकेरूपमें किसीप्रकारका "निश्चितस्रोत।कैप्टटनमहाराजकुमारगोपालसरननारायणणसिंहबनाम।आयआयुक्त कर, बिहारऔरउड़ीसा(2), किलोवेनकेलॉर्डरसेलनेसरजॉर्जलॉन्डेसद्वारादीगईपरिभाषाकाउल्लेखकरनेकेबादकहाकिसंपत्तिसेभुगतानकीजानेवालीजीवनवार्षिकीआयहै।( 1 ) ( 1932 ) एल. आर. 59 आई. ए. 206,212।( 2 ) ( 1935 ) एल. आर. 62 आई. ए. 207 सर्वोच्चन्यायालयकीरिपोर्ट 1027 एससीआर। सलामीकावर्णनलार्डराइटटनेकामाक्ष्यामेंकियाथा। 1957 नारायणणसिंहबनाम।आयकरआयुक्त(1), 999 कीअवधिकेलिएखननपट्टेकेअनुदानकामामलावर्ष, निम्नलिखितशब्दोंमेंः कृषि “ सलामीको, उनकेलॉर्डशिप्सइनकमटैक्स, असमकीरायमें, एकपूंजीरसीदकेरूपमेंमानागयाहै।यहएकहै अधिकारकेअधिग्रहणणकेलिएकियागयाभुगतान .श्रीमतीसिंधुरानी पट्टेदारोंद्वाराउन्हेंदिएगएलाभोंकाआनंदलेनेकेलिए चौधरीरानी लीजपरदिया।उससामान्यअधिकारकोउचितरूपसेएकपूंजीगतसंपत्तिकेरूपमेंमानाजासकताहै, औरइसेखरीदनेकेलिएभुगतानकिएगएधनकोउचितरूपसेपूंजीपरभुगतानमानाजासकताहै। ""खाता।महत्वइनशब्दोंकेउपयोगमेंनिहितहै इसेखरीदनेकेलिएभुगतानकियागयाधन, अर्थातपट्टेदारकापट्टेकेतहतदिएगएलाभोंकाआनंदलेनेकाअधिकार। राजाशिवप्रसादसिंहबनाम।क्राउन(2) जहांपट्टाभी999 वर्षोंकीअवधिकेलिएएकखननपट्टाथा, सलामीकोएक-ऐसीराशिकेरूपमेंवर्णितकियागयाथाजोपट्टेकीशुरुआतमेंदेयहैऔरपट्टेदेनेकेलिएप्रीमियमकीप्रकृतिमेंगैरआवर्तीभुगतानकेरूपमेंवर्णितकियागयाथाः Case: THE MEMBER FOR THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX, ASSAM versus SMT. SINDHURANI CHAUDHURANI [[1957] 1 S.C.R. 1019] (1957) "It is . abundantly clear from the above statement of facts that the rates of salami vary with the quality 1957 Tht mtmber for the Boart! of Agricullural Incomt Tax, Assam v Smt. Sindhurani Chaut!hurani Kapur]. 1957 Till Mtmb,, for 1111 B°"'"of Agrialll....Z Inconw Tu, As.ram v. Sm/. Sindlitrani Chowlhurani KaJJl'T j. 1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1957} of la!ld in each estate. They have no relation to rent which is admittedly fixed and invariable. Lands are settled generally in small plots; The highest figure received as salami in a single transaction in the years with which we are concerned was in Parbatjoar. A sum of Rs. 621 was received on a settlement of an area measuring 88 B., 14 K., 15 D. .In Mechpara an area measuring 165 B., 16 K., 12 D., was settled for Rs. 318. The minimum extent of area settled in one transaction was also in Mechpara. Lands measuring only 2 K. was settled. Salami received was Rs. 3-5-0. Between these two extremes the extent of areas settled varies." There were no evictions under s. 69 of the Assam Tenancy Act of non-occupancy tenants but ejectments did take place and action was taken under s. 68 of the Act. After the re-statement of the case on the lines suggested by the Federal Court, the Assam High Court held that "salami" is not rent but revenue derived from land and is therefore income ........ " The questio)l for decision is whether the amounts received as salami are rent or revenue within the definition of "agricultural income" and therefore liable to agricultural income-tax. The basis of the first Calcutta Judgment dated May 12, 1945, in C.A. No. 162 of 1955 was that salamis were a normal and regular feature of these estates and there was periodicity. When the matter came up in appeal to the Federal Court the learned Chief Justice was of the opinion that the receipt termed salami if nothing more is stated in respect of it cannot be treated as a capital receipt and therefore exempt from taxation nor could it merely as such be treated as income and there-fore assessable to income-tax. Mahajan J. (as he then was) said : "It may be a recurring or a periodical payment if it is a fee or a fine levied annually on the holder of rent-free tenures as a quit rent; on the other hand, it may not be a periodical payment or a recurring payment if it is in the form of gratuity or offering on receiving a lease or settling for the revenue or on receiving any favour real or implied." He was of the opinion that in the former case it would be agricultural income but in the latter case it would be a capital receipt being the price for that small "modicum of ownership which the landlord transfers to the tenant." In the Assam cases Ram Labhaya J. said that by settling the lands and accepting salami the landlord parts with the right of immediate occupation. Case: THE MEMBER FOR THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX, ASSAM versus SMT. SINDHURANI CHAUDHURANI [[1957] 1 S.C.R. 1019] (1957) चौधरीरानी लीजपरदिया।उससामान्यअधिकारकोउचितरूपसेएकपूंजीगतसंपत्तिकेरूपमेंमानाजासकताहै, औरइसेखरीदनेकेलिएभुगतानकिएगएधनकोउचितरूपसेपूंजीपरभुगतानमानाजासकताहै। ""खाता।महत्वइनशब्दोंकेउपयोगमेंनिहितहै इसेखरीदनेकेलिएभुगतानकियागयाधन, अर्थातपट्टेदारकापट्टेकेतहतदिएगएलाभोंकाआनंदलेनेकाअधिकार। राजाशिवप्रसादसिंहबनाम।क्राउन(2) जहांपट्टाभी999 वर्षोंकीअवधिकेलिएएकखननपट्टाथा, सलामीकोएक-ऐसीराशिकेरूपमेंवर्णितकियागयाथाजोपट्टेकीशुरुआतमेंदेयहैऔरपट्टेदेनेकेलिएप्रीमियमकीप्रकृतिमेंगैरआवर्तीभुगतानकेरूपमेंवर्णितकियागयाथाः आयकरआयुक्तबनाम।महाराजाधिराज कुमारविशेश्वरसिंह(3) 4 बीघाभूमिकेएकक्षेत्रकोवार्षिककिराएपरअनिश्चितकालकेलिएनिपटायागयाथाऔरलगातारदोकिश्तोंकेचूककीस्थितिमेंपट्टेदारपरकब्जानहींकियाजासकताथाऔरवहअन्यजुर्मानेकेलिएभीउत्तरदायीथा।इसभूमिकोपट्टेदारकेसाथबसायागयाथाताकिवहएक"गोलाहाउस" औरचावलमिलकेलिएएकमंचबनासके।पट्टेकोएकस्थायीपट्टेकीप्रकृतिमेंलियागयाथाऔरयहमानागयाथाकिसलामीभूमिकेसाथअलगहोनेकीकीमतकाप्रतिनिधित्वनहींकरतीथी अग्रिमकिरायाऔरचूंकियहआवर्तीभुगताननहींथा, इसलिएयह'आय' शब्दकीपरिभाषाकेअंतर्गतनहींआताथा?जैसाv. किआयकरआयुक्तमेंदियागयाहै।शॉ वालेसएंडकंपनी(1) . ।मनोहरलालजेजिन्होंनेएककॉनदिया वर्तमाननिर्णय, पृष्ठ824 मेंसलामीकोउसराशिकेरूपमेंवर्णितकियागयाहैजिसेएकमकानमालिक"पट्टेदारकेपक्षमेंभूमिकेसाथभागलेनेकेलिएएकशर्तपूर्र्तीकेरूपमेंप्राप्तकरनेपरजोरदेताहै"।उन्होंनेयहभीमानाकिसलामी(1) (1943) एल. आर. 70 आई. ए. 180,190।( 3 ) ( 1939 ) आई. एल. आर. 18 पटटना805.( 2 ) ( 1924 ) आई. एल. आर. 4 पटटना73.( 4 ) ( 1932 ) एल. आर. 59 आई. ए. 206,212 1028 सर्वोच्चन्यायालयकीरिपोर्ट [ 1957 ] 1957 इसेराजस्वरसीदकेरूपमेंनहींमानाजासकताथाऔरयहकि "मकानमालिकद्वाराप्राप्तकियागयाथाउपयोगकेकारणणनहीं भूमिकेलिएसदस्यलेकिनभूमिकेबोर्डद्वाराउपयोगमेंलाएजानेसेपहले "मूल्यांकनकर्ता।बिहारप्रांतमेंवहीन्यायालयबनाम। कृषि महाराजाप्रतापउदयनाथसाहीदेव(1) नेअनुसरणणकिया आयकर, असम '' कुमारमेंसलामीशब्दकीपरिभाषादीगईहै। .. . श्रीमतीसिंधुरानीविशेश्वरसिंहकामामला।हैरिससीजेकामाननाथाकि जहाँसलामीकोकिराएकाभुगताननहींमानाजासकताहै। चौधरीरानी अग्रिममें, यहआयनहींहोगीऔरइसलिए, जे. कपूरकरयोग्यनहींहोंगे।उन्होंनेकहा, "प्रथमदृष्टयासलामीनहींहै। आय, औरयहतथ्योंपरअसंभवहैजैसाकिकहागयाहै ... कहतेहैंकिप्राप्तसलामीकाहिस्साहै "।उसकीआय रेगुप्टूएस्टेटटलिमिटेड(2) मेंरैंकिनसी. जे. सलामीकेरूपमेंएकलाखरुपयेकाभुगताननहींकियाजाएगाआय।उसमामलेमेंइसकीमांगकीगईऔरभुगतानकियागयापट्टेकेपुनर्वासकासम्मानजोअभीभीचलरहाथा48 -वर्षोंकेलिएलेकिनगैरवेतनकेलिएजब्तकरलियागयाथाकिरायादेना।हालांकि, कुछमामलोंमेंसलामीकेमाध्यमसेभुगतानकियाजाताहै।'आय' इसेकृषिमानागयाहै।बीरेंद्रमेंकिशोरमाणिक्यबनाम।भारतकेराज्यसचिव(3) यहयहअभिनिर्धारितकियागयाकिएककेअनुदानकेलिएविचार-पट्टासमयसमयपरराशिकापूँजीकृतमूल्यहै।""प्रीमियमकेसाथदेयताकिअधिक"एकतत्वजितनाछोटाहोताहै, दूसरा।इसआधारपरबंजरभूमिकेनिपटानकेलिएभुगतानकियागयाप्रीमियमयापरित्यक्तजोतोंकोकिरायायाराजस्वमानाजाताथा।भूमिसेव्युत्पन्नऔरइसलिएपरिभाषाकेभीतरभारतीयसंविधानकीधारा2 (1) (ए) मेंकृषिआयआयकरअधिनियम।यहएकऐसामामलाथाजिसकाफैसलाकियागयाथाभारतीयआयकरअधिनियमऔरप्रश्नकेतहतचाहेवहपूंजीरसीदहोयाराजस्वरसीदऔरइसलिएकरसेछूटटयाछूटटनहींथी।क्योंकिबंगालकृषिआयकरअधिनियमथा1944 1939 मेंपारितकियागयाऔरमेंअसमअधिनियम।उसमामलेकेउद्देश्यकेलिएनिर्णयलेनाआवश्यकनहींहैचाहेवहपूंजीरसीदहोयाराजस्वक्योंकिक्यातयकियाजानाथाकिक्यासलामीथी ( 1 ) ( 1947 ) आई. एल. आर. 20 पटटना699,722।( 3 ) ( 1920 ) आई. एल. आर. 48 कैल.766 . ( 2 ) ( 1929 ) 50 सी. एल. जे. 375 सर्वोच्चन्यायालयकीरिपोर्ट एससीआर। आयसेछूटट-एसकेतहतकर।2 ( क) (i) भारतीय1957-आयकरअधिनियम।वास्तवमेंनिर्धारिती सदस्यकेलिए उसमामलेमेंतर्कदिया किइनराशियोंकागठन बोर्डऑफ " आय"कृषि।इसकेअलावाकहावतजितनीछोटीहोगीसलामीकिरायाउतनाहीअधिकहोगाऔरइसकेविपरीतकृषिआयकर, असम संघीयन्यायालयद्वारास्वीकृतिप्राप्तनहींहुईथीजबवर्तमानमामलेकीसुनवाईउसन्यायालयमेंपहलेकीगईथी .श्रीमतीसिंधुरानी रिमांड(1949 कासी. ए. सं. 30)। चौधरीरानी मेहरबानोखानमबनाम।केलिएराज्यसचिव भारत(1) 'सलामी' कोउसराशिकेरूपमेंपरिभाषितकियागयाथाजोमकानमालिकजे. कपूरद्वाराकिसीव्यक्तिकेहस्तांतरणणकीमान्यताकेलिएप्राप्तकीगईथी। -"आय" गैरहस्तांतरणीयस्वामित्वजोभूमिकेस्वामीकोउसकेस्वामित्वकेकारणणदियाजाताथा।इसेकृषिमानाजाताथा"" क्योंकियहउसअभिव्यक्तिकेअर्थमेंकिरायायाराजस्वथा।दस्टैंडिंग Case: THE MEMBER FOR THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX, ASSAM versus SMT. SINDHURANI CHAUDHURANI [[1957] 1 S.C.R. 1019] (1957) income but in the latter case it would be a capital receipt being the price for that small "modicum of ownership which the landlord transfers to the tenant." In the Assam cases Ram Labhaya J. said that by settling the lands and accepting salami the landlord parts with the right of immediate occupation. The characteristics and incidence of salami disclosed from the "statements of the cases" are that it is a lump sum non-recurring receipt of money by a landlord from a tenant before making a settlement of the holding, which· in C'.A. No. 162 of 1955 varied from Rs. 7 to Rs. 10 per bigha and was less in other cases. He is also entitled to charge a fixed periodical amount of 11 annas per bigha per annum. Salami is charged when-ever a fresh settlement is made whether it is of a piece of virgin land or of an auction-purchase holding. Thus salami is a payment by a tenant to the landlord antecedent to the constitution of the reiationship of landlord and tenant. It is really a payment by the tenant to the landlord for being allowed to take posses-sion of the land for cultivation under the lease. In all those cases under appeal the leases were oral and the duration and conditions thereof were regulated by Statute-The Assam Tenancy Act. Salami is not a recurring or periodical payment or a fee or fine levied at fixed intervals from the tenant for the same holding. In these cases it has not been contended or even suggested nor was it contended before tl1e Federal Court that salami is capitalised rent. As a matter of fact the Federal Court found that it was not rent. In consideration of the payment of salami an estate in land is transferred by the landlord to · the tenant although the estate taken by the tenant · in the first instance is a non-occupancy tenancy which grows into an occupancy tenancy by the efflux of time. But in no case in any of the appeals was action taken under s. 69 of the Assam Tenancy Act which regulates the rights and liabilities of non-occupancy tenants and no tenant was ejected from his non-occupancy tenancy. On the other hand whenever action had to be taken for non-payment of rent and ejectment it was taken 1957 T lie Memh1r for 1/16 Board of Agricu /lural Income Tax, Auam v. Sml. SitulhuraniJ Chau<fh,,rani Kapur]. 1957 Tbt MmiMr for t/u ·Botml of Agricultural Income T wt, A.sstlln v. SmJ. Sindhunmi Chaudhurani EafJVr J. [1957] under s. 68 of the Goalpara Tenancy Act. This section is as follows : A permanent tenure-holder, a raiyat at fixed rates, or an occupancy tenant, shall not be liable to ejectment for arrears of rent, but his tenure or holding shall be liable to sale in execution of a decree for the rent thereof, . and the rent shall be a first charge thereon. In execution of decrees for arrears of rent the estates of the occupancy tenants were sold, the purchaser in all cases being the landlord himself and thus for recovering the arrears of rent the landlord had to bring to sale the right, title and interest of his tenant and after purchase of this right he relet the land, on receiv-ing the salami from the new tenant. This process again shows that the landlord did part with some interest in land, which cannot be said to be precarious, when he made the settlement of land on receipt of .<alami, which was a single non-recurring payment by the lessee for the acquisition of his rights under the lease. "Agricultural income" which, it is claimer! by the Board comprises salami, has been defined in s. 2(a)(i) of the Act. The relevant portion of this $ection is : S. 2(a)(i). Any rent or revenue derived from land which is used for agricultural purposes, and is either assessed to land revenue in Assam or subject to a local rate assessed and collected by officers of the Govern-ment as such. Salami is not rent and, therefore, unless it is revenue it will not fall within this definition. "Income" was described by Sir George Lowndes Case: THE MEMBER FOR THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX, ASSAM versus SMT. SINDHURANI CHAUDHURANI [[1957] 1 S.C.R. 1019] (1957) संघीयन्यायालयद्वारास्वीकृतिप्राप्तनहींहुईथीजबवर्तमानमामलेकीसुनवाईउसन्यायालयमेंपहलेकीगईथी .श्रीमतीसिंधुरानी रिमांड(1949 कासी. ए. सं. 30)। चौधरीरानी मेहरबानोखानमबनाम।केलिएराज्यसचिव भारत(1) 'सलामी' कोउसराशिकेरूपमेंपरिभाषितकियागयाथाजोमकानमालिकजे. कपूरद्वाराकिसीव्यक्तिकेहस्तांतरणणकीमान्यताकेलिएप्राप्तकीगईथी। -"आय" गैरहस्तांतरणीयस्वामित्वजोभूमिकेस्वामीकोउसकेस्वामित्वकेकारणणदियाजाताथा।इसेकृषिमानाजाताथा"" क्योंकियहउसअभिव्यक्तिकेअर्थमेंकिरायायाराजस्वथा।दस्टैंडिंग उसमामलेमेंराज्यसचिवकीओरसेपेशहुएअधिवक्तानेस्वीकारकियाकियहराजस्वनहींथा, बल्किउनकातर्कथाकियहभूमिसेप्राप्तराजस्वनहींथा, बल्कियहहस्तांतरणणकीघटटनाथी, नकिकिरायेदारीकीऔरइसलिएयहभूमिसेनहींबहतीथी।इनमेंसेकिसीभीमामलेमेंयहतर्कनहींदियागयाकिसलामीराजस्वरसीदथीयापूंजीरसीद। पटटनाउच्चन्यायालयकीएकपूर्णपीठमेंराजाराजेंद्रनारायणणभंजदेवबनाम।.आयकरआयुक्त() उत्परिवर्तनशुल्ककोकृषिप्राकृतिकआयमानाजाताथा, लेकिनयहमकानमालिकऔरकिरायेदारकेसंबंधकेअस्तित्वमेंआनेकेबादभुगतानकामामलाथा।इसीतरहआयकरआयुक्तv.के. सी. मानविक्रमणणराजा(3) पट्टोंकेनवीनीकरणणकेलिएभुगतानकिएगएधनकोकृषिआधारितमानाजाताथा। एसकेअर्थकेभीतरप्राकृतिकआय।2 ( 1 ) ( (क) भारतीयआयकरअधिनियम।यहाँफिरसे पैसे मकानमालिकऔरकिरायेदारकेसंबंधकेगठनकेलिएनहींबल्किउससंबंधकेअस्तित्वमेंआनेऔरइसकेजारीरहनेकेलिएभुगतानकियाजाताथा। एच. एच. महाराजासरबीरबिक्रमकिशोरमाणिक्यमें बहादुरबनाम।असमप्रांत(ए), अधिनियमकेतहतएकमामला, हैरिससी. जे. नेकामाक्ष्यानारायणणकोसंदर्भितकिया सिंहकामामला(5) औरयहअभिनिर्धारितकियाकिइसकानिर्णय(1) (1925) आई. एल. आर. 53 सी. एल. कोकिया34 .जानाथा। ( 4 ) ( 1948 ) 53 सी. डब्ल्यू. एन. 164. ( 3 ) आई. एल. आर. 194 5 मैड।837 . 1030 सर्वोच्चन्यायालयकीरिपोर्ट [ 1957 ] 1957 प्रत्येकमामलेकेतथ्यकिक्यासलामीकृषिआयथीयानहींक्योंकियहसदस्यकेसंबंधमेंज्ञातनहींथा -राशिकाकौनसालेनदेनप्राप्तहुआथा। बोर्डऑफ कृषि एस. एम. बोसबनाममेंउड़ीसाउच्चन्यायालय।सचिव, आयकर, असम राजस्वबोर्ड(1) नेमानाहैकिसलामीअग्रिमरूपसेकिराएकाभुगताननहींहैऔरनहीयहआयहै, बल्कियहपूंजीरसीदकेमाध्यमसेभुगतानहै।हमारेसामनेयहतर्कदियागयाथाकिकामाक्ष्यानारायणणमेंप्रिवीकाउंसिल वी, .श्रीमतीसिंधुरानीचौधरीकपूरजे। सिंहकामामला(2) पट्टेकेतहतपरिसंपत्तियोंकेबर्बादहोनेकीप्रकृतिपरआधारितथा।लेकिनलॉर्डराइटटद्वारादीगईपरिभाषासामान्यशब्दोंमेंहैऔरकेवलयहबतातीहैकिसंपत्तिकीप्रकृतिकेरूपमेंकिसीभीसंदर्भकेबिनासलामीकेमाध्यमसेभुगतानकीविशेषताएंक्याहैं। एकपट्टेकेतहत। हमारेसमक्षइनसभीअपीलोंमेंनिर्धारितीनेकृषिसेकाफीबड़ीमात्रामेंआयअर्जितकी। प्राकृतिकहोल्डिंग्स।यहनहींदिखायागयाहैकिजोतोंकीसंख्याकितनीथी, लेकिनउन्हेंकाफीबड़ामानागयाहोगा।दूसरी---ओरनिपटानकीसंख्यातुलनात्मकरूपसेकमथीकुछसैकड़ोंऔरइसमेंकुंवारीभूमिकीबस्तियोंकेसाथसाथनीलामीखरीदभूमिशामिलथीऔरनियमितअंतरालपरएकहीजोतसेप्राप्तनहींहोतीथी।यहऔरऊपरदिएगएतथ्योंकेनिष्कर्षसलामीकेभुगतानकी"नियमितताऔरआवधिकता" केबारेमेंनिष्कर्षकोनकारात्मकबतातेहैंऔरयहभीकियह""उसकीभूमिकोपट्टेपरदेनेकेव्यवसायसेउत्पन्नहुआ।सलामीकेमाध्यमसेभुगतानसंविधानकेपूर्र्तीसंभावितपट्टेदारोंद्वाराकियागयाथा।प्रस्तावितपट्टेदारकेपक्षमेंकृषिजोतमेंअपनेअधिकारोंकेविभाजनकेलिएसहमतपट्टेदारकेलिएकीमतकेरूपमेंमकानमालिकऔरकिरायेदारकेसंबंधका।मैकनॉटटनसलामीद्वारामोहम्मदनकानूनकेसिद्धांतोंमेंपरिभाषितकियागयाहै; " प्रशंसाकेरूपमेंयाकिसीअनुग्रहकेबदलेमेंएकमुफ्तउपहार। विल्सनकीशब्दावलीमेंइसकाअर्थदियागयाहैःएकमानार्थउपहार, एकड्यूसर; एकवरिष्ठकोएकउपहारजबउसकापरिचयकरायाजाताहै; पट्टाप्राप्तकरनेपरउपदानयापेशकश।(1) ए. आई. आर. 1955 उड़ीसा288।( 2 ) ( 1943 ) एल. आर. 70 आई. ए.180,190 सर्वोच्चन्यायालयकीरिपोर्ट एससीआर। -जॉन्सनइटटद्वाराअरबीअंग्रेजीशब्दकोशमें 1957 मतलबः सदस्यकेलिए एकवरिष्ठसेपरिचयकरानेपरएकउपहार; बोर्डऑफ ईमानदारीसेपैसा; एककिसानकीओरसेसरकारकोएकमुफ्तउपहार कृषि जमीनलेनेपरजोरदेना। आयकर, असम खंडमें।बेडेनपॉवेलकी"ब्रिटिशभारतकीभूमिप्रणाली" केबारेमेंपृष्ठ543 मेंकहागयाहै; .श्रीमतीसिंधुरानी चौधरीरानी '...... ' जमींदारनेपैसाजुटानेकेलिएइतनेसारेतालुकयाखेतोंकोसलामीयाभुगतानशुल्ककेलिएबेचदियाथा। .कपूरजे '' नीचे।इसप्रकारयेसभीपरिभाषाएँदर्शातीहैंकिसलामीकिरायेदारद्वाराउपहारकेरूपमेंयाबिदाईकेलिएमूल्यकेरूपमेंभुगतानहै। मकानमालिकद्वाराकिसीस्वामित्वकेपट्टेकेतहतअपनेअधिकारोंकेसाथ।यहमकानमालिकद्वाराकिरायेदारकोहस्तांतरितकिएजानेपरविचारकरनेकेलिएएकमुश्तभुगतानहै। Case: THE MEMBER FOR THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX, ASSAM versus SMT. SINDHURANI CHAUDHURANI [[1957] 1 S.C.R. 1019] (1957) S. 2(a)(i). Any rent or revenue derived from land which is used for agricultural purposes, and is either assessed to land revenue in Assam or subject to a local rate assessed and collected by officers of the Govern-ment as such. Salami is not rent and, therefore, unless it is revenue it will not fall within this definition. "Income" was described by Sir George Lowndes in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shaw Wallace & Co. ( [1]) as· "a periodical monetary return coming in with some sort of regularity, or expected regularity, from definite sources." In Captain M aharai Kumar Go pal Saran Narain Singh v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar & Orissa([2 ]), Lord Russell of Killowen after referring to the definition given by Sir George Lowndes held that life annuity paid out of an estate is income. (1) (1932) L.R. 59 I. A. 2o6, 212. (2) (1935) L.R. 62 I.A. 207. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS Salami was described by Lord Wright in Kamakshya Narain Singh v. The Commissioner of Income Tax(1 ), a ca~e of a grant of a mining lease for a period of 999 years, in the following words : 1957 The Memb<r ]or lhe Board of Agriwltural lnc011M Tax, AsJam v. "The salami has been, rightly, in their Lordships' opinion, treated as a capital receipt. It is a single payment made for the acquisition of the right of lessees to enjoy the benefits granted to them by the lease. That general right may properly be regarded as a capital asset, and the money paid to purchase it may properly be held to be a payment on capital account." Smt. Si11dhurani l'liaudht1ra1li Kapur]. The importance lies in the use of the words "the money. paid to purchase it'', i.e., the right of the lessee to enjoy the· benefits granted under the lease. In Raja Shiv Prasad Singh v. The Crown(2) where also the lease was a mining lease 'for a period of 999 years, salami was described as a sum which is payable at the inceptioq of the lease and as a non-recurring payment in the nature of a premium for granting a lease: In Commissioner. of Income Tax