Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (p) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, (central) Calcutta

Shah, 1. In respect of assessment years 1949-50 and 1950-51 the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred five questions to the High Court of. Calcutta under s. 66 (I) of the Indian Incom~tax Act, 1922. Three of those questions which are canvassed in these appeals need be set out : Assessment year 1949-50 " ( I ) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 51,550/- was a profit in the nafure of revenue and therefore liable to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act ?" Assessment year 1950-51 " ( 3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 8,756/- was a profit '798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1969] 3 SoC.R. in the nature of revenue and was subject to tax A under the Indian Income-tax Act ? ( 4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss of Rs. 34,891/· was allow­ able as a deduction against the business income of the assessee for the assessme.ni year 1950·5 I ?" The appellant-a limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913-,-carries on business as managing agents, dealers in shares and stocks, stores -and spare parts of machinery and acts as insurance agents and manufacturers of carbon dioxide. It also works certain coal mines. The Com­ pany obtained a prospecting licence from the State of Korea for the Chirimiri Colliery in 1944 and after pr0specting for coal sold the colliery, and thereby earned a profit of Rs. 51,550 in the account year 1948-49 and Rs. 8,756 iru the account year 1949-50. The Income-tax Officer brought the profits arising out of the sale of the colliery to tax as business profits. The order was confirm· ed in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-fax Appellate Tribunal. The· Company conducted a Dry Ice Factory at Lahore. The factory was sold in September 1948 to the Inda-Pakistan Corpo· rati001 Ltd. The purchaser took over the factory on October 1, 1948, ·but the price was finally settled in December, 1949. By ·the sale the Company suffered a IOss of Rs. 34,891. The Com· pany claimed to deduct this loss from its income assessable to tax m the assessment year 1950-51. The Income-tax Officer dis­ allowed the claim. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner ·agreed with that view, and the Tribunal confirmed the order. In answering questions ( 1 ) & ( 3) the High Court observed : "The Chirimiri Colliery was sold after prospecting and proying coal. The sale in such a case was a part of the trading activities of the assessee and such acti­ vity co1,1ld be gathered from the surrounding circum· stances as also from the manner in which it was sold, that is, within a very short time after its ·acquisition and after it was made fit for obtainin1t a reasonably higher price at the sale. . . . . . . The profit thus acquired c~­ not be treated as a capital asset." ln answering question ( 4) the High Court observed : "The loss of Rs. 34,891 sustained by the assessee after the sale of Dry Ice Factory at Lahore in Septem­ ber 1948 cannot be treated as a 10ss of the business of sale, inasmuch as the Tribunal found as a fact that the loss not having occurred in the relevant accoumJting K, C. THAPAR & BROS, V. C.I.T. (Shah,/.) 799' year, was referable to the transaction of business during a period when the business completely ceased before the commencement of the accounting year. . . . " Counsel for the Company urges that prospecting for coal Ulllder a licence obtained from the State of Korea was not pa.rt of the business operations of the Company and that by selling the rights in the mine, the Company disposed of its assets and made gains of a capital nature. In any event, it was urged, this was a single transaction and in the absence of evidence that the Com­ pany carried on the business of obtaining prospecting licences and of selling the mines if "coal was proved", the profit arising out of sale of the mine which was a capital asset acquired by that transaction was not taxable. Where a person disposes of a part or the whole of his ·assets the general rule is that the mere change or realisation of an investment does not attract liability to income-tax but where such a realisation is an act which in itself is a trading transaction, profit earned by sale or conversion is taxable : Commissioner of Taxes v. Melbourne Trust Ltd.(') The cases which illustrate this distinction fall broadly into two categories-those ·where the sales formed part of trading activity, and, those in which the sale or realisation was not an act of trading. As observed in Califpr­ nian Copper Syndicate (Limited and Reduced) v. Harris (Surve­ ,vor of Taxes) (') the test is-"Is the sum of gain that has been made a mere enhancement of value by realising l} security, or is it a gailfl made in an operation of business in carrying out a scheme for profit-making ?" In determining whether the gain is realization of mere en­ hancement of value or is a gain made in an operation of business in carrying out a scheme for profit-making, l11o uniform rule can be evolved. It was observed by this Court in fanki Ram Bahadur Ram v. Commissioner of Income-tax(') : .". . . . . . no single fact has decisive significance, and the question whether a transaction is an adven­ ture ini the nature of trade must depend upon the col­ lective effect of 'all the relevant materials brought on the record. · But general criteria indicating that certain facts have dominaint signific'ance in the context of other facts have been adopted in the decided cases. If, for instance, a transaction is related to the business which is normally carried on by 'the assessee, though not directly part of it, an intention to faunch upon an ad­ v~nture in the nature ..0f -trade may readily bci inferred. (1) [1914f A.C. 1001, 1010 (P.C.) (2) 5 T.C. 159, 166. (3) 57 l.T.R. 21, 25. SUPllEME COURT REPORTS [1969] 3 S.C.R. A similar inference would arise where a commodity is purchased and sub-dividedJ altered, treate'£1 or repaired and sold, or is converted into a different commodity ll,!ld then sold. Magnitude of the transaction of pur­ chase, the nature of the commodity, subsequent deal­ ings and the manner of disposal may be such that the transaction may be stamped with the character of a trading venture : . . . . " A transaction of sale may in a given case be isolated : in another it may be intimately related to the normal business of the tax-payer. In the latter class profit arising from the transaction will probably arise out of the tax-payer's busij!less and will be assessable ·as business profits. An instructive case of this class is Imperial Tobacco Co. (of Great Britain and Ireland) Ltd. v. Kelly ( 1). In that case the Company carried on the business of tobacco manufacture, for which large quantities of tobacco leaf were purchased in the United States, where the Company main­ tained a large buyi111g organisation. To finance the purchases and the expenses of this organisation the Company bought dollars in the United Kingdom through its bankers wh:o remitted them to the banking accounts of the Company in the United States, and it was the practice of the Compapy to accumulate a large holding of dollars each year before the leaf season commenced. The Company never bought dollars for the purpose of resale as a spe­ culation. On the outbreak of war, in September 1939. the appel­ lant Company, at the request of the Treasury, stopped all further purchases ·of tobacco leaf in the United States, and, as a result, the Company had on hand, a holding of dollars accumulated be­ tween January and August, 1939. On September 30, 1939, the Company was ordered under the:_ Defence (Finance) Regulations, 1'39, to sell its surplus do!lars to the Treasury, and, owing to the rise in the rate of exchange, the sale resulted in a profit to the Company. It was held b_y the Court of Appeal that the ·profit was liable to be included. as profits of its trade under Sch. D Case I. The tax-payer was not carrying on business in dollars, but the transactions in dollars -were intimately related to their principal business and the profits earned by sale of dollars were treated as profits taxable as business profits. In T. Beynon &: Co. Limited v. Ogg (Surveyor of Ta.re$(') the tax-payer carrying on business as Coal Merch~'ts. Ship and Insurance Brokers, and as sole selling agent for various Colliery Companies, in which latter capacity it was part of its duty to pur­ chase viagons on ~half of its clients, bought ii large number of wagons on .his own accOuiIJt with the intention of re-selling them (I) 25 T. C. 292. (2) 7 T. C. 125. 8 11:. C. THAPAR & BROS, v. C.I.T. (Shah,/.) 1101 at profit. The contention of the tax-payer that th~ transaction ·bdng an isolated one, the profit was in the nature of a capital profit on the realisation of an investmQilt was negatived. The profits realised in this transaction were held to result from the operation of the Company's business and properly includible in the computation of the Company's profits for assessment under Sch. D. In Gloucester Railway Carriage and Wagon Co. Ltd. v. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue(') the tax-payer carried on the business of manufacturing wagons for sale or hire. The tax-payer sold some of the wagons which were formerly hired out. The tax-payer contended that the profit realired by sale was an isolated transaction resulting in a capital profit. The House of Lords held that the "bus\µtess was alJ one", namely, to make profit out of wagons and on that account the profits realized by sale of wagons were taxable. The Tribunal in the present case recorded .the following findings : "It is no doubt true that this was a single transac­ tion. But we were told by the assessec's collnsel that the assessec obtained prospecting licence in the colliery, developed the colliery and then sold out. What was the purpose of obtaining the prospecting licence has not been told to us. The assessee was carrying on business of coal mining. The prospecting of coal is a part of the coal mining business. Therefore, in our opinion, the transaction of prospecting, develoP.ing and sellin~ the colliery is a transaction in the nature of a busmess. Therelorc, the profit arising from the sale is a profit in the nature of revenue ~ has been rightly brought to tax." F Our task would have been lightened if the Tribunal had stated the findings in greater detail. Nevertheless the Tribunal has found that the Company was carrying on the business of coal min­ ing and prospectiing of coal was a part of the coal mining business and on that account the transaction of prospecting, developing and selling the colliery was a transaction in the nature of a busi- G ness. On the findings recorded by the Tribunal it follows that the prospecting fO!i coal being a part of the coal mining business, the income was properly regarded as taxable. The answer record­ ed by the High Court on questions ( 1) & ( 3) must be upheld. Turning to the fourth question : the sale transaction of the Dry Ice Factory was completed on October 1, 1948, but the price wlS finally settled in December 1949. In the settlement, the Com­ pany suffered a loss of Rs, 34,891. The loss was suffered in the ' {I) 12 T. C. 720. 8 02 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1969] 3 S.C.R.. business transaction and the ortly dispute raised before the Tribu­ nal related tq the year in which the loss was liable to be taken futo account. The Tribunal disallowed the loss iJll the assessment of income for the year 1950-51. The Tribunal held that the busi: ness of the Dry Ice Factory was not carried on in the year of account-April 1, 1949 to March 31, 1950, and on that account the loss was not admissible as a permissible deductio,n in comput­ ing the taxable income of the Company for the assessment' year 1950-51. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal. In our judgment, the High Court was in error iii holding that the, loss was not a permissible deduction. Section 24 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, in the relevant year of assessment read as follows : "(1) Where any assessee sustains a loss of profits 1Jr gains in any year under any of the heads mentioned in section 6, he shall be entitled to have the amount of the loss set off against his income, profits or gains under lljl)y other head in that year : · Provided that ( 2) Where any ~sessee sustains a loss of profits or ~ains in any year, being a previous year not earlier than the previous year for the assessment for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, under the head profits of business, profession or vocation, and the loss ~­ not be wholly set off under sub-section ( 1 ) the portion not so set off shal! be carried forward to the following year and set off against the profits or gains, if any, of the assessee from the same business, profession or voca­ tion for that year : Provided that By sub-s. ( 1) the loss or profits or gains suffered under any head in any year was liable to be set off against the income, pro­ fits or gains under any other head, and by sub-s. ( 2) where the loss suffered in any business, profession ot vocation could pat be wholly .set off under sub-s. ( 1) the loss not so set off had to be carried forward to the following year and set off against the profits and gains of the same business in the subsequent years. The Tri­ bunal 3jlld the High Court applied sub-s. (2) of s. 24 in C:omput­ ing the taxable income of the Company for the assessment year 1950-51. But in so proceeding, in our judgment, they were in error. The business of Dry Ice· Factory was sold in October, 1948. We will assume that the Dry Ice FactQrV was a separate business of the Company and was not a part of the oiher business carried on by the Company. But the price for which the business was sold was settled in December 1949. Until the price was K. c. THAPAR & BROS. v·. C.I.T. (Shah, J.) 803 .A settled, loss did not accrue or arise to the Company. The loss was suffered in .the account year 1949-50 and could be allowed against the income of that year uinder s. 24 (l ) . The assulIIPtion that the Joss was suffered in the previous year i.e., 1948-49 was, in our judgment, not warranted. The case was plainly-governed by sub-s. ( 1) of s. 24. The answer to the fourth questron record- B ed by the High Court must be discharged, The answers to questions ( 1) & (3) recorded by the High Court are affirmed. Question ( 4) yvill be answer~ in the affir· mative and in favour of the Company. In view of the divided. success, there will be no order as to costs in this Court. The . order as to costs in the High Court is maintained. V.P.S. Appeals allowed in part. Mii Sup. Cl/69-2