- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Agha Abdul Jabbar Khan v. Cit, M.P .
Factual and Procedural Background
The assessee, a Muslim individual, asserted during assessment year 1961-62 that certain income belonged to his wife, not to him, because he had allegedly transferred the underlying property to her in February/March 1960 for a consideration of Rs 1 lakh. The consideration was said to be an enhancement of the original meher (dower) of Rs 10,000 fixed at the couple’s 1930 marriage.
The Income Tax Officer rejected the claim, holding that the transaction was a mere gift and lacked satisfactory evidence of genuineness. That finding was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On further appeal, however, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) found the transfer both genuine and valid, concluding that the wife had been in possession of the property and that its income could not be taxed in the assessee’s hands.
At the Department’s request, the Tribunal referred a single question to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, concerning taxability of the income under Section 16(3). The High Court, holding that the referred question did not capture the real controversy, reformulated it into two new questions dealing with (i) the legality of an oral transfer in lieu of enhanced dower and (ii) applicability of Section 16(3). Dissatisfied, the Department brought the present appeal to the Supreme Court by special leave.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the High Court has jurisdiction to reformulate or add new questions of law that were not referred by the Tribunal.
- What course the High Court should adopt if it considers the referred question inadequate—specifically, whether it should call for a supplementary statement of the case instead of reframing questions itself.
Arguments of the Parties
Department (Appellant)
- Contended that the alleged transfer was invalid and the assessee’s narrative was inherently unbelievable.
- Urged that the income should therefore remain taxable in the assessee’s hands under Section 16(3).
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court confined itself to examining the scope of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 66(1). It reasoned as follows:
- The High Court’s role in a reference is limited to giving its opinion on the specific questions of law forwarded by the Tribunal.
- The two new questions framed by the High Court did not flow from the original question and therefore lay outside its statutory authority.
- If the High Court believed the referred question failed to encapsulate the real dispute, its proper recourse was to request a fresh or supplementary statement of the case from the Tribunal; it could not, on its own, broaden or alter the questions.
- The Supreme Court noted that it is bound by the same jurisdictional limits while hearing an appeal arising from such a reference and therefore could not entertain the Department’s substantive attack on the validity of the transfer.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; High Court order set aside. The matter is remitted to the High Court to answer only the question originally referred by the Tribunal, in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Implications: The decision reinforces the confined advisory jurisdiction of High Courts (and, by extension, the Supreme Court on appeal) in income-tax references. It clarifies that High Courts may not expand or reframe questions of law on their own initiative, but must either answer the question as referred or require the Tribunal to submit an appropriately framed one. No new substantive tax precedent was set; the ruling affects only the procedural handling of the present reference.
K.S Hegde, J.— This appeal by special leave arises from the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The question referred for the opinion of the High Court was: “Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the income from the property transferred to the assessee's wife for a consideration of Rs 1 lakh could be assessed in the hands of the assessee under Section 16(3) of the Act?”
2. The facts of the case, as set out in the statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal, are as follows:
3. The assessee, a Muslim, claimed in his assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 1961-62 that a particular item of income is not his income but that of his wife. According to him he had transferred for consideration the property from out of which the income in question arose to his wife for a consideration of Rs 1 lakh. His case was that at the time of his marriage with the transferee, in 1930, a meher of Rs 10,000 had been fixed. But, in 1960, he enhanced the meher to rupees one lakh and in February or March of that year he orally transferred the property in question to his wife to discharge his meher. The Income Tax Officer did not accept the claim of the assessee. He came to the conclusion that there is no satisfactory evidence to show that the transfer in question is a genuine one. In his view the transaction was a gift and not a transfer for consideration. The conclusion reached by the Income Tax Officer was affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. But, on a further appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the transfer was genuine as well as valid. In its view it was open to the assessee to increase the meher fixed at the time of marriage, on a subsequent date, and the evidence on record established the enhancement pleaded by the assessee as well as the transfer put forward. It also came to the conclusion that, ever since the transfer, the wife of the assessee was in possession of the property transferred in her name. Hence, the income of that property cannot be considered as the income of the assessee.
4. Aggrieved by that decision, the Department sought to have the following questions referred to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Section 66(1) of the Act:
“(1) Whether, having regard to the evidence on record, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the transfer of property under dispute was not a gift?
(2) Whether there was any material before the Appellate Tribunal to support its finding that the assessee had in fact increased the dower debt from Rs 10,000 to Rs 1,00,000?
(3) Without prejudice to the Questions 1 and 2 above, whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the property transferred to the wife in consideration of dower debt did not attract the provisions of Section 16(3)(a)(iii)?”
5. The Tribunal opined that the only question of law that arose for reference is the one mentioned by us earlier. In fact the Tribunal's question proceeds on the basis that there was in fact a transfer as alleged by the assessee and that transfer is a valid one. The question on which the Tribunal sought the opinion of the High Court was whether the income of the property so transferred could be assessed to tax under Section 16(3) of the Act. The question framed by the Tribunal appears to us to be self-contradictory. If its findings are correct on fact as well as on law, there can be hardly any doubt that the income of the property in question cannot come within the scope of Section 16(3)(iii).
6. The Department does not appear to have made any attempt before the High Court for calling for a supplementary statement of the case. Unfortunately, the High Court instead of answering the question referred to it, reframed the questions. While doing so, it observed: In the application made under Section 66(1) of the Act, the Department desired three questions to be referred to this Court. However, as already indicated, the Tribunal referred only one question for the opinion of this Court. That question, as formulated by the Tribunal, does not pointedly bring out the real issue in controversy but we think it is sufficiently wide to include within its ambit the following two questions:
“(i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there could be, in law, an oral transfer of the property in lieu of rupees one lakh due as dower debt?
(ii) If so, whether the income from the property is liable to be included in the assessable income under Section 16(3) of the Act?”
7. In our opinion the High Court had no jurisdiction to raise new questions of law. The questions raised by it do not flow from the question referred to it for its opinion. The High Court's power under the Act is only to give its opinion on the questions of law referred to it by the Tribunal. It cannot take into consideration questions of law which have not been referred to it for its opinion. If the High Court thought that the question referred to it did not bring out the real point in issue it was open to it to call for a fresh statement of the case and direct the Tribunal to submit for its opinion the real question arising for decision. The High Court did not do so. On the other hand the High Court dealt with the reference as if it was dealing with an appeal before it. It failed to realise the limits of its jurisdiction in references under Section 66(1).
8. It was urged by Mr Manchanda, the learned Counsel for the Department, that on the face of it, the transfer pleaded by the assessee is an invalid one and the story put forward by him is unbelievable. We cannot go into those questions in this appeal because this Court is subject to the same limitations, while hearing appeals against the orders of the High Courts in references under Section 66(1), as the High Courts are. Our advisory jurisdiction is no more extensive than that of the High Courts.
9. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court. Now, the case will to back to the High Court for considering the question referred to it for disposal, according to law. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
Alert