Case: M/S. Chidambaram Mulrak &amp; Co. Pvt. Ltd Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay City I

and gains of a business and does not create a fresh source therefor, and as the amount in question in this case was received in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1955-56, it was taxable in the assessment year 1955-56. The Tribunal, however, agreed with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the assessee was entitled to a deduction of Rs. 6 lakhs which the assessee had paid for acquiring the managing agency, and allowed the appeal partly holding that the assessee was liable to pay tax on the sum of Rs. 3, 95, 000. At the instance of the parties the Tribunal referred the following two questions to the High Court under section 66(1)" (i) Whether the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs is income assessable in the year 1955-56 by virtue of section 10(5A) ?(ii) If the answer is in the affirmative, whether the initial cost of acquisition of the managing agency of Rs. 6 lakhs and Rs. 5, 000 paid as brokerage on sale are deductible?"3. The first question was referred at the instance of the assessee and the second at the instance of the department. The High Court overruled the contention of the assessee that the amount in question was income from a new source for which the previous year was 1953-54, and answered the first question in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. As regards the second question, the High Court answered it in favour of the assessee and upheld the order of the Tribunal. In the present appeal brought on a certificate under section 66A(2), the assessee challenges the correctness of the answer given by the High Court to the first question." Previous year" is defined in section 2(11) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the relevant part of the definition is as follows:"(11) Previous year means in respect of any separate source of income, profits and gains-(a) the twelve months ending on the 31st day of March next preceding the year for which the assessment is to be made, or, if the accounts of the assessee have been made up to a date within the said twelve months in respect of a year ending on any date other than the said 31st day of March, then at the option of the assessee, the year ending on the date to which his accounts have been so made up: "4. As stated already, sub-section (5A) of section 10 came into force on April 1, 1955 ; therefore, the amount in question, if received by the assessee during the previous year for the assessment year 1955-56 would be taxable under that sub-section. By a legal fiction introduced by sub-section (5A) any amount received by a managing agent as compensation for the termination of his managing agency agreement which would otherwise have been a capital receipt is to be deemed as profits and gains of a business carried on by the managing agent. The appellant contends that sub-section (5A) indicates that this deemed income is to be treated as receipt from a new source and, that being so, the relevant previous year for this income would not necessarily be the year ending on June 30, 1954, which was the previous year for the managing agency business, and the assessee should have been given an opportunity to choose the previous year in respect of the receipt in question ; if the financial year 1953-54 is taken as the previous year for this income from a new source, the argument proceeds, then the amount would not be taxable in the assessment year 1955-56. It is further argued that the amount received as compensation could not be the profits and gains of the managing agency business because the business itself was being terminated. The words of the sub-section, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, indicate that the receipt is to be treated as income from a new and independent source. Sub-section (5A) states, inter alia, that any compensation or other payment received by a managing agent in connection with the termination of his managing agency agreement shall be deemed to be profits and gains of "a business" carried on by the managing agent. The use of the indefinite article before the word "business", it is submitted, makes it plain that the income is not relatable to the managing agency business but to a new and separate sourceWe are unable to accept the contention. The fiction introduced by sub-section (5A) regards the capital receipt as income and does not extend to treating the termination of managing agency itself as a business. The amount received by the appellant was a payment for the termination of the managing agency business and, as such, the receipt is obviously related to that business. It is of course true that the amount was not earned in carrying on the business of managing agency, but it is clear that the source of the receipt was the managing agency business itself. It cannot, therefore, be said that the receipt was income from a new and independent source. In our opinion the High Court was right in holding that in enacting sub-section (5A) the legislature was concerned only with providing a head under which the receipt which has been deemed to be income could be brought to tax and was not concerned with creating a new source for that deemed income. Two decisions cited on behalf of the respondent, one of the Bombay High Court, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Private Ltd., and the other of the Madras High Court, R. V. Lakshmiah Naidu and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, have both held that the compensation paid for the termination of a managing agency business is a payment in relation to the said business and, therefore, the previous year relevant to that receipt would be the same as the previous year for the managing agency business itself. In our view these two decisions state the law on the point correctly.5.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The fiction introduced by sub-section (5A) regards the capital receipt as income and does not extend to treating the termination of managing agency itself as a business. The amount received by the appellant was a payment for the termination of the managing agency business and, as such, the receipt is obviously related to that business. It is of course true that the amount was not earned in carrying on the business of managing agency, but it is clear that the source of the receipt was the managing agency business itself. It cannot, therefore, be said that the receipt was income from a new and independent source. In our opinion the High Court was right in holding that in enacting sub-section (5A) the legislature was concerned only with providing a head under which the receipt which has been deemed to be income could be brought to tax and was not concerned with creating a new source for that deemed income. Two decisions cited on behalf of the respondent, one of the Bombay High Court, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Private Ltd., and the other of the Madras High Court, R. V. Lakshmiah Naidu and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, have both held that the compensation paid for the termination of a managing agency business is a payment in relation to the said business and, therefore, the previous year relevant to that receipt would be the same as the previous year for the managing agency business itself. In our view these two decisions state the law on the point correctly.