Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Reference Case No. 4 of 1968, decided on 27th March 1968.
‑D‑Rebate on donations‑Words "sums" and "paid"‑Meanings‑Expression "sums paid" means a particular "amount of money paid in cash"‑Transfer of shares", held, not covered by expression and assessee not entitled to get rebate on real value of shares transferred by way of donation.
Afzalul Haque for Applicant.
Dr. Kamal Hossain with Mozammel Huq Khan and Moinul Hossain for Respondent.
Dates of hearing : 26th and 27th March 1968.
.‑The Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal, Dacca has referred the following question for our opinion under section 66(1) of the Income‑tax Act (hereinafter called "the Act").
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper construction of section 15‑D of the Income‑tax Act, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the words "any sums paid" used in section 15‑D mean and include transfer of "shares" also and if so, whether the assessee is entitled to get rebate on the real value of the shares transferred by him by way of donation "
The assessee in this case is one A. Khaleque who submitted a return for the assessment year 1960‑61 showing, inter alia that he transferred certain shares to G. M. D. Foundation of the value of Rs. 1,10,000. He has similarly claimed to have transferred shares of the value of Rs. 1,17,170 for the assessment year 1961‑62. The Income‑tax Officer did not allow the rebate on account of "donations" as contemplated under section 15‑D of the Act, for, according to him transferring shares would not be "sums paid" within the meaning of that expression. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, took the contrary view and held that 15‑D does not contemplate donation in cash only but it includes donation in kind as well. The Commissioner of Income‑tax preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. It however upheld the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in this behalf. Thereafter, the Revenue presented an application for referring the question to this Court for our opinion and accordingly the question quoted at the outset has been referred to us for our opinion. Hence the present reference.
Mr. Afzalul Haque, learned Advocate for the Commissioner of Income‑tax, submits that the question should be answered in the negative for he contends that the expression "any sums paid" used in section 15‑D ,does not mean or include transfer of shares.
Mr. Hossain, learned counsel for the assessee, however, argues that such a narrow interpretation to the expression "any sums paid" should not be given and that it would be contrary to the object aimed at by the Legislature.
Subsection (1) of section 15‑D of the Act is as follows: ‑
"The tax shall not be payable by an assessee in respect of any sums paid by him on or after the first day of April, 1952 as donations to any institution or fund which is established in the Provinces of Pakistan or the Capital of the Federation for a charitable purpose and is approved by the Central Govern ment for the purposes of this section:"
It is not contested before us that the G. M. D. Foundation is approved by the Central Government for the purposes of the sections. The only question raised is that the transfer of shares to the said Foundation would not constitute "any sums paid" within the meaning of that expression as used in section 15‑D. We are, therefore, called upon to consider the meaning of the words "sums" and "paid" in order to answer the question referred to us. In the concise Oxford Dictionary, 5th Edition the meaning of the word "sum" is given as follows:
"Total amount resulting from addition of items, brief expression that includes but does not specify details, substance, summary, particular amount of money . . . . . . .
In the Chamber's Twentieth Century Dictionary the following meanings are given:
"total : whole : aggregate : result of addition : amount : a quantity of money : . . . ."
in the Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. X, the meaning of the word "sum" is given inter alia as
"1. A quantity or amount of money.
b, absol. sum of money'.
c. A quantity of money of a specified amount."
It is, however, mentioned therein as obsolete
"A, quantity of goods regarded as worth so much."
It will therefore be seen that the literal meaning of the word "sum" would be a quantity or amount of money or more precisely a particular amount of money. We are unable to attribute to the Legislature that it used the expression "sums paid" to mean "a quantity of goods regarded as worth so much" although this meaning is obsolete, in complete disregard of the meaning indicated above. ,
We are also to consider the meaning of the word "paid" in this connection. In the Chamber's Twentieth Century Dictionary, the meaning of the word "pay" is given as follows:
"to satisfy, gratify : to give what is due (in satisfaction of a debt, in exchange, in compensation in remuneration) to : to give in satisfaction of a debt, in exchange, compensation, remuneration, & c : to settle, discharge, as a claim, bill debt, duty: to hand over money, & c . . . . . or other equivalent . . . "
It would therefore be seen that it would not be difficult for us to accept the contention of Mr. Hussain that payment in kind is not excluded if we could restrict ourselves to the word "pay". But, we cannot disregard the meaning of the word "sum" as is given to it in its popular and literal sense. Therefore reading the two words together we are clearly of opinion that the expression "sums paid" occurring in section 15‑D means a particular amount of money paid in cash. That being so, we do not consider that the Tribunal is justified in holding that transfer of shares would also come within the expression "any sums paid" occurring in section 15‑D.
Mr. Hossain has advanced an argument that we should appreciate the result that was sought to be achieved by the provi sion of section 15‑D and we should not restrict exemption from payment of tax to donation in cash only. In view of the accepted meaning of the relevant words discussed above we cannot attribute to the Legislature the intention of including donation in the expression "sums paid".
For the reasons stated above we answer the question in the negative and leave the parties to bear their own costs.
‑I agree.
S. Q.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer