Derbyshire, C.J:— In my opinion the question of law arising in this case was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on July 3, 1940, in the case of In re Manager, Radhika Mohan Roy Wards Estate— a Reference under the provisions of Section 66 of the Indian Income-Tax Act—reported in [1940] (8 I.T.R 460). That case has been followed ever since not only by this Court but by the High Court at Patna in the case of Maharaja Bahadur Ram Ran Vijay Prasad Singh v. Province of Bihar, [1942] (10 I.T.R 446) which was decided on April 1, 1942, by a Bench consisting of Harries, C.J, Fazl Ali and Manohar Lall, JJ.
2. At page 456 of the report Harries, C.J, referring to the case of In re Manager, Radhika Mohan Roy Wards Estate observed: “In my view, there is no doubt whatsoever as to the correctness of this decision that–interest on’ arrears of rent is not rent.”
3. There is only one answer to the question put in the present case— it is that the sum of Rs. 36,810 representing the income arising from interest on arrears of rent under Section 67 of the Bengal Tenancy.
4. Act is taxable income. In my view the law is perfectly clear and if an assessee under these circumstances comes here and asks for a decision we can only refer him to these cases and order that he pays the costs of the reference.
5. The result is that the sum of Rs. 36,810 representing the income arising from interest on arrears of rent under Section 67 of the Bengal. Tenancy Act is taxable income. The assessee who brought this question must pay the costs of this Reference which are assessed at eleven gold mohurs. This will include the costs of preparing the paper book.
Gentle, J.:— I agree.
Reference answered accordingly.