Holding

The phrase ‘taxes borne by the owner’ means the tax liability of the owner, not the amount actually paid, so the deduction is allowable even if the tax is unpaid or disputed.

Summary

Dalhousie Properties Ltd, assessed for the year 1966-67, claimed a deduction of Rs.1,78,784 for municipal taxes under the proviso to section 23(1) of the Income‑Tax Act, 1961, arguing that the deduction should be allowed on the basis of the tax liability even though the amount was not fully paid and was under dispute. The Income‑Tax Department opposed the claim, but the Income‑Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Calcutta High Court both held that the phrase “taxes borne by the owner” refers to the owner’s liability, not the amount actually paid, and therefore the deduction was permissible. The Commissioner of Income‑Tax filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. The Court examined whether “borne by the owner” meant liability or actual payment and, relying on the statutory scheme, affirmed the High Court’s interpretation that it denotes liability. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the deduction.

Issues considered

Whether the expression ‘taxes borne by the owner’ in the proviso to section 23(1) of the Income‑Tax Act, 1961, refers to the owner’s tax liability or to the amount actually paid by the owner.
Whether a deduction under section 23(1) can be claimed when the municipal tax has not been paid or is contested by the assessee.

Legislation cited

Income Tax Act, 1961s. 22, s. 23, s. 256

Subjects

Income Taxmunicipal taxesdeductionannual valuesection 23(1)section 22interpretation of statutory languagetax liabilityhouse property

Judgment

613

A
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
CALCUTTA
v.
DALHOUSIE PROPERTIES LTD.
n
August 23, 1984
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND V. BALKARISHNA ERADI, JJ.]

Income-tax Act, 1961-Proviso to secteon 23 (I) it as stood in the assessment.
year 1966-67-For determining annual value of property assessee entitled to clainJ
deductio~ of total liability of municipal tar,es whether actually paid or not. C
Words and phrases-Expression 'borne'-Scope of.

White determining the· annual value of the property which was liable to
iricome-tax for the assessment year 1966-67 under the head "Income from house
propf(rty" under section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the respondent-asses-
see claimed that the total liability for municipal taxes levied by the corpo- D
ration, whether actually paid or not and whether the extent of liability ques-
tioned or not, was deductible under the priviso to section 23 (I) of the Act.
The department, rejected the claiin. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal
allowed the claim. On a refrence being made the High Court held in favour
of the assessee. Therefore the department filed this petition for special leave
to appeal.
E
Dismissing the petition,
HELD : The only point is whether the expression 'boine by the owner'
which appeared in the proviso to section 23 (I) as it stood in the year 1966-67
would refer to the amount of tax which the owner was liable to pay or amount
of tax which he had actually paid in discharge of the liability. It is true that
the expression 'borne' may refer to either the liability which a person is liable F
to discharge or the actual sum paid by him in discharge of that liability. But
we agre_e with the High Court that in the present context it should be cons-
trued as referring to the former namely, the amount of tax which the owner is
liable to discharge as stated in the proviso to sectibn 23 (1) of tthe Act and
• not the latter one. The reason for taking this view flows from the scheme of
the Act itself. [616D-FJ
G
Bhagwan Dass Jain v. Union of Tndia, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 808; referred to.

In the instant case it is not, therefore, necessary that the assessee should
have actually paid the amount of tax in question before such deduction is
claimed. The position is not also different even where the assessee has dis- H
614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] 1 S.C.R,

A puted the correctness of the levy before the local authorities concerned. A
mere expectation of success in the proceedings in which the assessee has dis-
puted such levy does not disentitle him to the statutory deduction on the basis
of the levy which is in force. (617B-C]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDlC'fION: Special Leave Petition (Civil)
B
No. 3786 of 1982.
'
From the Judgement and Order dated the 21st April, 1978 of
the Calcutta High Court in Income Tax Reference No. 573 of 1971.
K.C. Dua and Miss A. Subhashini for the Petitioner.
c .The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

VENKATARAMIAH, J. This Special Leave Petition is filed under •
Article 136 of the Constitution by the Commissioner of Income-tax,
West Bengal, Calcutta against the decision of the High Court of
D Calcutta in Income-tax Reference No. 573 of 1971.

The respondent, Dalhousie Properties Limited was an assessee
under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')
in the assessment year 1966-67, the relevant previous year being the
year ending March 31, 1966. It owned extensive properties and its
income from rents realised was substantial. In the assessment year
in question, the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,78,784
which r<:presented the tax levied by the Corporation of Calcutta as
a deductible item while computing its income from house property.
It appears that the assessee had questioned the extent of liability
which had just then been enhanced before the Corporation and on
F that account had not actually paid the whole of it. This led to a
difference of opinion between the department and th~ assessee.
•
In course of time the dispute regarding the assessment of the
liability of the assessee under the Act reached the Income-tax
c Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the total liability for
municipal taxes which the assessee could claim by way of deduction '
under the proviso to section 23 (I) of the Act in respect of the buil-
dings during the accounting year was Rs. 1,78,784 and that the
said amount was to be allowed as a deduction irrespective of the
fact that the assessee had raised a dispute about tho extent of the '
liability before the Corporation and that the ·assessee had not paid
H the whole of it to the Corporation of Calcutta. Aggrieved by the
C.I.T. v. DALHOUSIE PROPERTIES (Venkataramiah, J.) 615

above decision of the Tribunal, the Department got the following
A
question referred to the High Court under section 256 (1) of
the Act:- I
• "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case the Tribunal was right in holding that the full taxes
levied by the Corporation of Rs. 1,78,784 should be B
deducted under section 23 (1) of the lncome·tax
Act, 1961 ?"

The High Court answered the above question in the affirmative
and in favour of the assessee. This petition is filed against the said
decision of the High Court. C
• The material part of section 23, as it stood in the assessment
year 1966-67 read as follows :

"23. Annual value how determined.-(!) For the
purposes of section 22 the annual value of any property D
shall be deemed to be the sum for which the property
might reasonably be expected to let from year to year :

Provided that where the property is in the occupation of
a tenant and the taxes levied by any local authority in respect
E
of the property are under the law authorising such levy payable
wholly by the owner, or partly by the owner and partly by the
tenant, a deduction shall be made equal to the part if any of
the tenant's liability borne by the corner ............... "
'
Under section 22 of the Act what is chargeable to income-tax F
under the head 'Income from house property' is the annual value
of property consisting of any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto
of which the assessee is the owner other than such portions of such
property as he may occupy for the purpose of any business or pro-
fession carried on by him the profits of which are chargeable to
income-tax. As explained by this Court in Bhagwan Dass Jain v. G
Union of lndia\1 ) income-tax is payble under this provision in respect
of the bona fide annual value of the property determined as provi-
ded in section 23 of the Act. Section 23 (1) laid down the principle
according to which the annual value of any property could be
•
(1) [1981] 2 $.C.R. 808.
H
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985) 1 S.C.R.
A
notionally determined during the relevant period. First, the sum
for which the property in question might reasonably be expected to
let from year to year had to be ascertained. From that as per the
proviso to section 23 (I) of the Act where the property was in the
occupation of a tenant, if taxes levied by a local authority in respect •
of it were to be borne by the owner, they had to be deducted to
B the extent mentioned therein and the balance should be deemed to
be the annual value which would be liable to tax subject to the
other provisions of the Act. The object of the proviso was that
where the tenant of the property had undertaken to bear any part
of the taxe5 levied by the local authority, the owner could not be
allowed to claim deduction in respect of it. It may be stated here
c that the proviso to section 23 (!) as it stood at the relevant time
had not been happily worded. It has been since suitably modified.
'
The only point canvassed before the High Court and before
us is whether the expression 'borne by the owner' would refer to
D the amount of tax which the owner was liable to pay or the amount
of tax which he had actually paid in discharge of the said liability.
It is true that the expression 'borne' may refer to either the liability
which a person is liable to discharge or the actual sum paid by him
in discharge of that liability. But we agree with the High Court
E that in the present context it should be construed as referring to the •
former namely, the amount of tax whiCh the owner is liable to dis-
charge as stated in the proviso to section 23 (I) of the Act and not
the latter one. The reason for taking this view flows from the
scheme of the Act itself. As mentioned earlier, the experssion
'annual value' is a national figure and it does not refer to any •
F actual receipt. It is arrived at by deducting the taxes levied by a
local authority for paying which the owner has assumed the responsi-
bility from the sum for which the property might reasonably be ex-
pected to let from year to year. It is reasonable to treat the annual •
value of a house property as remaining more or less constant
during the entire period covered by any given previous year except
perhaps where the tax liability itself is modified by the local
G authority concerned. It cannot keep on changing as and when
some payment towards the tax liability imposed by the local
authority is made by the assessee during the year. In order to
ensure that there is no unwarranted fluctuation in the annual value
during the year in question such actual payment should be elimina- •
H ted from consideration but only the tax liability imposed by the local
C.l.T. v. DALHOl!SIE PROPERTlES (Venkataramiah, J.) 617
authority which the assessee is liable to pay as contemplated by the
proviso to section 23(1) of the Act should be allowed to be deducted A
under the said proviso. It is not, therefore, necessary that the
assessee shonld have actnally paid the amount of tax in question
before such deduction is claimed. The position is not also different
even where the assessee has disputed the correctness of the levy be..
fore the local authorities concerned. A mere expection of success
in the proceedings in which the asessee has disputed sucH levy does B
not disentitle him to the statutory ·deduction on the basis of the
levy which is in' force.
The High Court was, therefore, right in deciding the case in
favour of the assessee.
c
The Special Leave Petition is therefore, dismissed .
•

H.S.K. Petition dismissed •

•

'

•