KAPIL MOHANversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

                       KAPIL MOHAN                                              A
                             v.
           THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

                           DECEMBER 18,1998

           [S.P. DHARUCHA AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.]                              B

      Income Tax Act, 1961-Sections 2(24)(viii); Chapter XXll-A, Sec/Ions
280-B(4), 280-B(6), 280-C, 280-D, 280W, I 59-Annuity Deposit Scheme,
1964-Paras 4(a), 6, 7,9, Form 7-Deposit made under, by the original depositor
refundable to him in 10 equal instalments of principal and interest under the   C
provisions of Section 280-Death of the original depositor-Payment of the
balance amount to the legal representative, the son/executor-Nature of-
Held, the payment of the unpaid balance of the annuity deposit to the legal
representative is the repayment of capital though so paid in annuity form-
Such repayment of capital not liable to tax as income in the hands of the       D
legal representative-Submission that the legal representative was liable to
be taxed on account of Section 159, rejected-Section 159 not applicable.

      Section 280-D-Applicability of-Annuity under the provisions of
Section 280-D payable to the original depositor-Held, Section 280-D does
not apply to anyone other than the original depositor-It was therefore only     E
in the hands of the original depositor that the annuity was income and
taxable as such.

     Tax and Equity-Held, are strangers-Just as reliance upon equity
does not avail an assessee, so it does not avail the Revenue.
                                                                                F
      Deposit for a sum of Rs. 1,57,250 was made by the original depositor
under the Annual Deposit Scheme framed under Chapter XXIl-A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961. The said deposit was refundable to the original
depositor in 10 equal instalments of principal and interest under the
provisions of Section 280-D of the Act. The original depositor having died,
the instalment of the balance amount payable to him under Section 280-D         G
was paid to his son/executor, the assessee. The said balance amount paid to
the son/assessee was treated as income in the hands of the assessee by the
Income Tax Officer for the Assessment Year 1970-71. The order was reversed
by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal and Subsequently upheld
by the Tribunal. At the behest of the assessee, reference was made to the       H
                                    647
    648                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A High Court. The reference was answered in favour of the Revenue and
    against the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal.

          On behalf of the Revenue it was contended that the annuity which had
    been paid to the assessee was paid under the Annuity Deposit Scheme. The
    payment to the assessee being under the Scheme, was a payment under the
B   provisions of Section 280-D and therefore income as defined by Section
    2(24)(viii) and taxable as such in the assessee's hands.

          Allowing the appeal, this Court

          HELD: 1.1. Section 280-D of Income Tax Act, 1961 does not apply to
C anyone other than the original depositor. Only to the original depositor is
    the annuity paid under the provisions of Section 280-D. It is, therefore, only
    in the hands of the original depositor that the annuity is income, by reason
    of the inclusive definition in Section 2(24)(viii) and taxable as such.
                                                                          (657-B]

D         1.2. Section 280-D states that the requirement of repayment to the
    depositor of the annuity deposit "in ten annual equated instalments of principal
    and interest at such rate as may be notified" is subject to the other provisions
    of Chapter XXII-A and any Scheme framed thereunder; that is to say, that
    the Scheme may provide for a different manner of repayment to the depositor.
    In any event and assuming that the Scheme can provide that the repayment
E   be made to someone other than the original depositor and payment is made
    accordingly, it is payment under the Scheme and not payment under Section
    280-D. [656-G-H; 657-A)

           1.3. The amount of annuity deposit was income in the hands of the
    original depositor and taxable as such. The provisions of the Act and the
F   Scheme obliged him to make the deposit thereof instead of paying income-
    tax thereon. The annuity deposit, when made, became capital. When returned,
    either as a whole or by instalments, it was not liable to tax as income. For
    this reason Section 2(24Xviii) was enacted, whereby the instalment or annuity
    was treated as income, provided it was received under Section 280-D, that
G   is to say, the annuity was to be treated as income if received by the original
    depositor. On the original depositor's death the balance of the annuity deposit
    that he had made became part of his estate and was liable to tax as such.
    Becoming a part of his estate, his legal representatives became entitled to
    recover it, and they would under the general law be entitled to recover it
    in one lump sum paying no tax on it (except estate duty, should a statute
H   levying it be on the statute book at the relevant time). Sub-paragraph 4(a)
                   KAPIL MOHAN v. C.l.T. [BHARUCHA, J.]                     649
of the Scheme does no more than recognise that the unpaid balance of the           A
annuity deposit has to be paid over to the original depositor's legal
representatives, adding only this: that it would be paid in instalments as
annuity. Though so paid in annuity form the repayment is of capital. It cannot
be taxed as income in the ha.nds of the legal representative unless the stjltute
were expressly to deem it to be income in his hands. [657-C-F)
                                                                                   B
     K. Bhoomiamma and Anr. v. Controller of Estate Duty Mysore,
Bangalore, 115 ITR 703 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dr. Rodhan
H.Shroff, 207 ITR 957, affirmed.

      Commissioner ofIncome-Tax, Delhi-Ilv. O.N. Ta/war, 11.3 ITR 80 and           C
Commissioner of Income-Tax. Gujarat-III v. Narottamdas K. Nawab, 102 ITR
455, impliedly overruled.

     C/Tv. MM Muthiah, 109 ITR 463; C/Tv. Hukumchand Mohan/al 82
ITR 624 and C/Tv. S.M Ebrahim, 134 ITR 599, referred to.

      2. The contention that in view of Section 159 of the Act the assessee        D
was liable to be taxed on the amount of the annuity, cannot be sustained as
Section 159 applies to income that had accrued to the deceased when he was
alive: it would not apply to a case such as the present one. [656-D-E)

       3. It has long been recognised that tax and equity are strangers. Just      E
as reliance upon equity does not avail an assessee, so it does not avail the
Revenue. The legal representative of a deceased depositor cannot be made to
pay income-tax upon the annuity only because the original depositor had not
been required to pay income-tax on the amount of the annuity deposit, on the
basis that what the Revenue had lost out on then should be recouped to it now.
The original depositor did not voluntarily make the annuity deposit he was         F
required by the Act and the Scheme to do so. In so far as he was concerned,
the Act provided that the annuity he received would be taxable as income.
Whether advisedly or otherwise, the Act did not provide that the annuity
would be taxed as income in the hands of his legal representative, and there
it must remain. (657-G-H; 658-A)                                                   G

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5264 of
1990.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 22.5.84 of the Delhi High Court in
l.T.R. No. 33of1997.                                                               H
    650                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A         G.C. Sharma, Tripurari Rai and Vineet Kumar for the Appellant.

          K.N. Rawal, Additional Solictior General, Ranbir Chandra and B.K. Prasad
    for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
          BHARUCHA, J. The following question, referred to the High Court of
    Delhi under Section 256(1) of the lncome-taic Act, 1961, was answered in the
    affirmative and in favour of the Revenue :

            "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
C           Tribunal was justified in holding that the refund of annuity of Rs.
            12,013 to the assessee as Executor of the Estate of his late father
            Padam Shree N.N. Mohan was his income and assessable in his hands
            as Executor of the estate of the deceased?"

          The annuity referred to in the question was a payment under the
D Annuity Deposit Scheme. The Delhi High Court followed its judgment in an
    earlier case. The Gujarat High Court had taken a similar view. The High Court
    of Karnataka and the High Courts at Bombay and Madras have taken the
    contrary view.

E       The facts, briefly stated, are these : One N. Mohan had deposited the
  sum of Rs.1,57 ,250 under the Annuity Deposit Scheme framed under Chapter
  XXIl-A of the Income-Taic Act, 1961. The same was refundable to him in I0
  equal instalments of principal and interest under the provisions of Section
  280-D of the Act. The said Mohan having died on 15th July, 1969, the
  instalment of principal and interest in the rnm of Rs.12,013 payable to him
F under Section 280-D was paid to the assessee, his son and executor. For the
  Assessment Year 1970-71 the lncome-Taic Officer treated the sum of Rs. 12,013
  as income in the hands of the assessee. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant
  Commissioner held that the said sum was not taicable in the assessee's hands.
  The Tribunal reversed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and, at the
G behest of the assessee, referred the aforestated question to the Delhi High
  Court. The Delhi High Court, by the judgment and order under appeal, held
  against the assessee.

        Section 2(24)(viii) of the Act defines "income" to include "any annuity
  due, or commuted value of any annuity paid, under the provisions of Section
H 280-D". Chapter XXJI-A of the Act provides for Annuity Deposits. "Annuity"
                  KAPIL MOHAN v. C.l.T. [BHARUCHA, J.]                     651

is defined by Section 280-8(4) to mean "any annual instalment of principal        A
and interest thereon payable by the Central Government under the provisions
of Section 280-D". A "depositor" is defined by Section 280-8(6) "to mean a
person to whom the provisions of this Chapter apply". Section 280-C requires
an assessee covered by Chapter XXII-A to make for every assessment year
an annuity deposit with the Central Government at the rate prescribed in          B
respect of his total income for the previous year. Section 280-D deals with the
repayment thereof and states :

            "Subject to the provisions of this Chapter and any scheme framed
        thereunder, the Central Government shall repay to the depositor the
        annuity deposit made or recovered in any year in ten annua.l equated      C
        instalments of principal and interest at such rate as may be notified
        by the Central Government in the Official Gazette."

(The proviso to Section 280-D does not concern this case.) Section 280-W
empowers the Central Government to frame Annutty Deposit Schemes and
these may, inter-alia, provide for the manner and the intervals at which the      D
annuities would be paid.

      The Annuity Deposit Scheme, 1964, was framed under Section 280-W
and came into force on I st October, 1964. With effect from 8th February, 1967,
sub-paragraph 4(a) thereof read : "In the case of a deceased depositor who
has not made a nomination under paragraph 11, the annuity shall be payable        E
to his legal representative." Paragraph 6 thereof provided for payment to the
depositor of the annuity. Paragraph 7 provided for the refund of annuity
deposits but it did not cover the case of a depositor who had died. Paragraph
9 dealt with nominations; it said, "A depositor, being an individual, may
nominate in Form No 7, or as near thereto as may be, one or more individuals
who shall be entitled to receive the annuity payable to him in the event of       F
his death.

       The Delhi High Court, in the judgment under appeal, followed its earlier
judgment in Commissioner ofIncome-Tax, Delhi-II v. O.N. Ta/war, 123 !TR 80.
This was a case where the assessee was the 'karta' of a Hindu undivided           G
family. The assessee had made annuity deposits under the Annuity Deposit
Scheme, 1964, on behalfof the HUF. Thereafter, the HUF was partitioned and
the assessee received to his share repayments against the annuity deposits.
The Appellate Tribunal held that, since the assessee was not the depositor,
the repayments would not be taxable in his hands except to the extent of the
 interest that was included therein. The Delhi High Court answered the question   H
    652                        SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A that was referred to it in this behalf against the assessee holding that not only
    the interest element but also the principal element of the annuity, to the extent
    of the share of the assessee in the annuity deposits, was taxable in his hands.
    It said that the annual repayment was deemed to be income and, whether
    received by the depositor himself or the nominee or the legal representative,
B   it would be subjected to tax only when the total income exceeded the maximum
    not chargeable to tax. It could not be the intention of the Legislature that it
    would necessarily be taxed on receipt or taxed at the same rate at which the
    annuity deposit would have been liable to tax had it not been deducted from
    the total income in the year of deposit. The only idea was that since the
    amount of deposit was excluded from the total income at that time, the annual
C   payments should be included in the total as and when received. The deposit
    having been made under the Scheme, the repayment had been obtained
    thereunder. The Delhi High Court assumed that even when there was no
    specific provision under the Act or the Rules for repayment, it would still be
    possible for the legal representatives of a depositor to obtain repayment of
D   the deposit made by the deceased by recourse to legal action but the repayment
    in the case before it had not been made in any such manner. It was repayment
    made ostensibly and purportedly under the Act and the Scheme and, hence,
     it should be treated as a payment made under the Scheme and so under the
    provisions of the Act. The Delhi High Court approved of the view taken by
    the Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat-II/ v.
E   Narottamdas K. Nawab, 102 ITR 455.

         The Gujarat High Court in Nawab 's case (aforementioned) was required
    to answer this question :

            "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
            instalment of annuity deposit received by the karta of the assessee
F
            as nominee/legal representative of the deceased depositor was liable
            to be assessed as income of .the assessee?"

    There was no dispute that under the provisions of the Act and the Scheme,
    so far as the depositor himself was concerned, the payments or instalments
G   which he received were income in his hands. The question was : did it make
    any difference when the amount of the annuity was received by the nominee
    or the legal representative of the depositor? Section 280-D opened with the
    words "Subject to the provisions of this Chapter and any scheme framed
    thereunder". Under the Scheme the annuity was payable to the depositor's
    legal representative or, if he had made a nomination, to the nominee. It was,
H   therefore, clear that under the Scheme the nominee or legal representative of
                      KAPIL MOHAN v. C.l.T. [BHARUCHA, J.]                      653
     the original depositor was a person to whom the amount of annuity became           A
     due under the Scheme and it could not be said that only the provisions of
     Section 280-D which provided for repayment to the depositor should be
     looked at. The provisions of Section 280-D were subject to the provisions' of
     any Scheme and under the Scheme, in the event of the death of the original
     depositor, the amount of the annuity became due to the legal representative,       B
     in case there was no nomination, or the nominee, if there was one. Counsel
     for the assessee contended that under the general law what the legal
     representative received was not an annuity but the return of capital and what
     he would be receiving was an instalment of that capital. The Gujarat high
     Court did not agree. It held :

                "In the instant case we find that a portion of the income of the
                                                                                        c
            original depositor which had been withheld as a measure to prevent
            inflation and was thus impounded, is being released over a period of
            ten years and since the money was made available to the Government
            some amount of interest was also included wjth the amount so repaid
            by ten equal instalments. Ordinarily, the word "instalment" is associated   D
            with return of capital. But in this particular case what we find is that
            the Government which had impounded the income in the particular
            year in which the deposit was made, returns the same amount with
            some amount of interest in ten equal instalments. For having deposited
            that particular amount in the year in which the deposit was made, the       E
            depositor got certain relief in his own income-tax assessment and was
            not subjected to the extra amount of income-tax which he was liable
            to pay under section 280X for failure to make the deposit under the
            provisions of Chapter XXII-A and the Annuity Deposit Scheme framed
            thereunder. Under these circumstances, even if the question were to
            be considered from the larger point of view as Mr. Patel wanted us          F
            to consider, we come to the conclusion that in the instant case when
            the amount is being returned, it is not the return of capital but the
            return of the original item of income which is now spread over a
            period of ten years. Under these circumstances, even considered from
            the larger point of view, it is not possible to accept Mr. Patel's          G
            contention that this was a return of capital and not a return of income.
·~          Moreover, that which would have been income in the hands of the
            original depositor does not cease to be so by the mere circumstance
            that the depositor died and the money is being received by the legal
            representative or by the nominee. That which was otherwise income
            retains its character of income notwithstanding the fact that original      H
    654                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A          depositor died in the meanwhile.

               Under these circumstances, considered from either point of view,
           namely, from the point of view of the provisions of the Act and the
           paragraphs \if the Annuity Deposit Scheme, taken together, or
           considered fr~m the point of view of general law, the result would be
B          the same, namely, that these annuity payments which are a ~reature ·
           of statute and statutory powers, are income in the h.ands of the
           nominee, legal representatives of the original depositor."

         The Karnataka High Court in the K. Bhoomiamma & Anr. v. Controller
    ofEstate Duty, Mysore, Bangalore, 115 !TR 703, was concerned with several
C questions, of which the first two are relevant :
               "(I) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,
           the Tribunal was justified in holding that a sum of Rs. 48, 777 on
           account of annuity deposits was rightly included in the principal
           value of the estate of the deceased?
D
               (2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether,
           on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
           right in holding that no deduction should be made out of the value
           of the annuity deposits on account of income-tax payable by the legal
           heirs of the deceased on the instalments of annuity deposits receivable
E          by them?"

    No argument was addressed to the High Court on the first question and the
    High Court said that it was clear that the beneficial interest in the annuity
    deposits made by the deceased and the right to recover them passed on the
    death of the deceased to his heirs and they, therefore, came within the
F   definition and ambit of the expression "property passing on the death of the
    deceased". The second question arose out of the contention raised on behalf
    of the accountable person that the valuation of the annuity deposits without
    taking into consideration the income-tax payable by the heirs of the deceased
    when the annuity deposits were realised from time to time was wrong. The
G   Karnataka High Court held that the income-tax which the accountable person
    was likely to pay had no relevance to the valuation of the annuity deposits
    at the time of death of the deceased. The value of the estate of the deceased
    had to be determined on the death of the deceased and it was not the value
    of estate in the hands of the accountable person subsequently.

H         The decision of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax
                   KAPIL MOHAN v. C.I.T. [BHARUCHA, J.]                     655
v. Dr. Rodhan H. Shroff, 207 ITR 957, is squarely in favour of the assessee.       A
The questions to be answered read thus :

           "(!) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,
       the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no provision in
       the Income-Tax Act whereby the repayment of annuity deposit made
       to a legal heir could be deemed to be the income in the hands of the        B
       legal heir?

           (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,
       the repayment of annuity deposits can properly be taxed in the hands
       of the assessee, who is a nominee of the depositor, under the
       provisions of section 2(24) (viii) read with section 2800 of the Income-    C
       tax Act, 1961, since the repayment of annuity deposit is actually
       received by the assessee?"

The Bombay High Court said that the annuity deposit or any amount under
the Annuity Deposit Scheme which was paid to a nominee on the death of
the depositor was not covered in the definition of income under Section            D
2(24)(viii). This Section included in the definition of income only the amount
paid under Section 280-D to a depositor. Hence, the Court said, "we do not
see how a payment which is made to a nominee upon the death of the
depositor, in respect of the annuity deposits made by the depositor, would
fall within the definition of income under Section 2(24)(viii) of the Income-tax   E
Act, 1961 ". The Bombay High Court relied upon the judgment of the Madras
High Court in C/Tv. MM Muthiah, 109 ITR 463, where it had been held that
there was a fictional inclusion of the annuity referred to in Section 280-D in
the income of the depositor. It was only in the circumstances set out in
Section 280-D and by a statutory fiction that the annuity repaid in instalments
could be income in the hands of the depositor. There was no such statutory         F
provision which would cover the receipt of such an instalment in the hands
of the nominee, as income of the nominee. Unless the charging section was
expressive and clear, it was not possible to include all amounts received by
the assessee as his income only on the contention that it would be equitable
to do so. Reliance was laid on this Court's judgment in CIT v. Hukumchand          G
Mohan/al 82 ITR 624, where it had been held that if the Income-tax Act did
not contain any provision making a successor in business or the legal
representative of an assessee liable to pay tax on the deemed profits of the
original assessee, the legal representative could not be so taxed. The reasoning
of the Madras High Court in the case of MM Mwhiah was followed by it
in the subsequent decision in C/Tv. SM. Ebrahim 134 ITR 599. The Bombay            H
     656                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP. 3 S.CR .

A High Court agreed with the reasoning and conclusions of the Madras High
  Court. It disagreed with the view taken in Nawab 's case because, in its view
  the Gujarat High Court had failed to take into account the express provisions
  of Section 2(24)(viii) wherein the repayments received only by the depositor
  were deemed to be his income. The Bombay High Court also considered the
  decision of the Delhi High Court in Ta/war's case and held that it was
B inapplicable to a case like the one before it where the deposit had not been
  received by the depositor in any sense of the term. Section 280-D in terms
  referred only to repayment to the depositor. All that it said was that such
  repayment to a depositor would be subject to other provisions in the Scheme.
  Section 280-D did not cover any payment either to a nominee or to a legal
C representative of a deceased depositor. Therefore, the definition of income
  under Section 2(24)(viii) did not cover a repayment of annuity deposit received
  by a nominee or a legal representative.

         Reliance was placed by the learned Additional Solicitor General on
  Section 159 of the Income-tax Act, which says, "Where a person dies, his
D legal representative shall be liable to pay any sum which the deceased would
  have been liable to pay if he had not died, in the like manner and to the same
  extent to the deceased". It was submitted that, in any event, the assessee was
  liable to be taxed on the amount of the annuity on this account. The submission
  can be disposed of immediately, before we go to the main contention. Section
E 159 applies to income that had accrued to the deceased when he was alive;
  it would not apply to a case such as the present.

        The argument on behalf of the Revenue runs thus: Sub-paragraph 4(a)
  of the Scheme says that "the annuity shall be payable to his legal
  representatives" if the deceased depositor has not made a nomination. It was,
F therefore, that the annuity had been paid to the assessee; it had been paid
  under the Scheme. Section 280-D requires the Central Government, subject to
  the provisions of Chapter XXII-A and any Scheme framed thereunder, to
  repay the annuity deposit. The payment to the assessee being under the
  Scheme, it is a payment under the provisions of Section 280-D. It is, therefore,
  income as defined by Section 2(24)(viii) and taxable as such in the assessee's
G hands.
         As we read it, Section 280-D, which has been quoted above, states that
  the requirement of repayment to the depositor of the annuity deposit "in ten
  annual equated instalments of principal and interest at such rate as may be
  notified" is subject to the other provisions of Chapter XXII-A and any
H Scheme framed thereunder; that is to say that the Scheme may provide for
                        KAPIL MOHAN v. C.1.T. [BHARUCHA, J.]                     657
     a different manner of repayment to the depositor. In any event and assuming         A
     that the Scheme can provide that the repayment be made to someone other
     than the original depositor and payment is made accordingly, it is payment
     under the Scheme and not payment under Section 280-0. Section 280-0 does
     not apply to anyone other than the original depositor. Only to the original
     depositor is the annuity paid under the provisions of Section 280-0. It is,         B
     therefore, only in the hands of the original depositor that the annuity is
     income, by reason of the inclusive definition in Section 2(24)(viii) and taxable
     as such.

           The amount of the annuity deposit was income in the hands of the
     original depositor and taxable as such. The provisions of the Act and the           C
     Scheme obliged him to make the deposit thereof instead of paying income-
     tax thereon. The annuity deposit, when made, became capital. When returned,
     either as a whole or by instalments, it was not liable to tax as income. For this
     reason Section 2(24 )(viii) was enacted, whereby the instalment or annuity was
     treated as income, provided it was received under Section 280-D; that is to
     say, the annuity was to be treated as income if received by the original            D
     depositor. On the original depositor's death the balance of the annuity deposit
     that he had made became part of his estate and 'was liable to tax as such, as
     the Kamataka High Court rightly held in Bhoomiamma 's case. Becoming a
     part of his estate, his legal representatives became entitled to recover it, and
     they would under the general law be entitled to recover it in one lump sum,         E
     paying no tax on it (except estate duty, should a statute levying it be on the
     statute book at the relevant time). Sub-paragraph 4(a) of the Scheme does no
     more than recognise that the unpaid balance of the annuity deposit has to
     be paid over to the original depositor's legal representatives, adding only this
     : that it would be paid in instalments as annuity. Though so paid in annuity
     form the repayment is of capital. It cannot be taxed as income in the hands         F
     of the legal representative unless the statute were expressly to deem it to be
     income in his hands.

           As to the argument based on equity, it has long been recognised that
     tax and equity are strangers. Just as reliance upon equity does not avail an        G
     assessee, so it does not avail the Revenue. The legal representative of a
-~   deceased depositor cannot be made to pay income-tax upon the annuity only
     because the original depositor had not been required to pay income-tax on
     the amount of the annuity deposit, on the basis that what the Revenue had
     lost out then should b_e recouped to it now. The original depositor did not
     voluntarily make the annuity deposit; he was required by the Act and Scheme         H
    658                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A to do so. Insofar as he was concerned, the Act provided that the annuity he
    received would be taxable as income. Whether advisedly or otherwise, the
    Act did not provide that the annuity would be taxed as income in the hands
    of his legal representative, and there it must remain .

           . The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order under appeal is set
B aside. The question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee.
           No order as to costs.

    M.P.                                                       Appeal allowed.