Case: Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd Vs. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Central) Bombay

income received or deemed to be received in India even if it accrues elsewhere, or under clause (c) on income which accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise in India even if it is received elsewhere. The liability to tax in respect of income received in India is common to both residents and non-residents and is imposed by the general clause (a). A non-resident, unlike a resident, is not chargeable in respect of income accruing or arising without India and not received in India. Section 14(2)(c), which is now deleted, had great importance when British India was distinct from Indian States, because it exempted income which accrued or was received in the Indian States but was not brought into British India, The deletion of this clause became inevitable upon the merger of the Indian States. This clause which was inserted in 1941 exempted income accruing or arising within the Indian States ; but the exemption did not apply if the income was received or deemed to be received in or was brought into the taxable territories in the previous year by or on behalf of the assessee or if the income was assessable under section 12B or section 42. The position, therefore, was that losses made in British India could not be reduced by adjusting against them the profits in the Indian States which were exempted under the clause, but the income exempted from the clause had, however, to be included in the assessees total income for the purpose of determining the rate applicable to his taxable income. But so far as a non-resident was concerned the clause had no application, because a non-resident was not chargeable in respect of income accruing or arising without India and not received in India. Now, we come to section 24, sub-sections (1) and (2) with the provisos appended thereto which we have quoted earlier in this judgment. It appears that prior to 1950 profits accruing in the Indian States, later called Part B States, were exempt from tax under section 14(2)(c), unless they were received in or brought into the territories then referred to as British India or were assessable under section 12B or section 42. The first proviso to sub-section (1) as it stood at the relevant time dealt with losses accruing in the quondam Indian States and provided that losses incurred in the Indian States should be set off only against profits accruing in the Indian States. This was a reasonable provision, because an assessee who was not liable to tax in respect of his profits arising in the Indian States could not be allowed to set off his losses incurred in the Indian States against his profits arising in British India. Similarly, clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (2) enacted that losses incurred in an Indian State could be carried forward and set off only against profits accruing in an Indian State from the same business in a subsequent year. The argument on behalf of the respondent is that so far as a non-resident is concerned, he is not chargeable in respect of income accruing or arising without India and not received in India. Therefore, in his case it is unnecessary to go to the provisos, but section 24 itself has no application because sub-section (1) of section 24 when it refers to loss of profits or gains, has reference to taxable profits or taxable gains and sub-section (2) of section 24 can only be applied in a case where the loss cannot be set off under sub-section (1) because of the absence or inadequacy of profits etc. In other words, the argument is that section 24 is applicable only to such loss of profits and gains which if they had been profits and gains would have been assessable in British India or the taxable territories ; but in the case of non-residents, income accruing or arising without British India or without the taxable territories not being liable to be assessed, the loss of such profits and gains is not contemplated to be set off within the provisions of section 24, sub-sections (1) and (2)Mr. Kolah has pointed out that sub-section (2) of section 24 as also sub-section (1) talk of " any assessee " and he has argued that there is no reason why the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 24 should not be applicable to a non-resident assessee. He has further argued that whatever might have been the effect of the provisos in 1948-49, in 1950-51 Indore became part of the taxable territories and the assessee company became entitled to carry forward the losses up to six years and there is nothing in section 24(2) to prevent him from making the claim. We are unable to accept this argument as correct.. Reading the provisions in section 24 with the provisions in section 4(1)(a) and (c) and section 14(2)(c) it seems clear to us that section 24(1) when it talks of profits or gains has reference to taxable profits or taxable gains ; in other words, it has reference to such profits and gains as would have been assessable in British India or the taxable territories. It has no reference to income accruing or arising without British India or without the taxable territories which were not liable to be assessed in the case of non-residents. We are further of the view that for determining the nature of the losses under consideration in the present appeals, the relevant year was 1948-49, the year in which the losses occurred and the High Court rightly took the view that for the application of sub-section (2) of section 24, the losses must be such losses as could have been set off under sub-section (1) of section 24. We agree with the view expressed by the High Court that the loss amounting to Rs. 5, 19, 590 was not such a loss as could have been set off either under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 24 7.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]Under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, assessees are divided into three categories : (a) resident and ordinarily resident, (b) resident but not ordinarily resident, and (c) not resident. We are concerned in the present case with an assessee who in the year in which the loss which is sought to be carried forward occurred was a non-resident. Sub-section (1) of section 4, the material portion of which we have quoted earlier, states that persons who are not resident in India are liable to charge under clause (a) or clause (c) of the said sub-section. They may be taxed under clause (a) on income received or deemed to be received in India even if it accrues elsewhere, or under clause (c) on income which accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise in India even if it is received elsewhere. The liability to tax in respect of income received in India is common to both residents and non-residents and is imposed by the general clause (a). A non-resident, unlike a resident, is not chargeable in respect of income accruing or arising without India and not received in India. Section 14(2)(c), which is now deleted, had great importance when British India was distinct from Indian States, because it exempted income which accrued or was received in the Indian States but was not brought into British India, The deletion of this clause became inevitable upon the merger of the Indian States. This clause which was inserted in 1941 exempted income accruing or arising within the Indian States ; but the exemption did not apply if the income was received or deemed to be received in or was brought into the taxable territories in the previous year by or on behalf of the assessee or if the income was assessable under section 12B or section 42. The position, therefore, was that losses made in British India could not be reduced by adjusting against them the profits in the Indian States which were exempted under the clause, but the income exempted from the clause had, however, to be included in the assessees total income for the purpose of determining the rate applicable to his taxable income. But so far as a non-resident was concerned the clause had no application, because a non-resident was not chargeable in respect of income accruing or arising without India and not received in India. Now, we come to section 24, sub-sections (1) and (2) with the provisos appended thereto which we have quoted earlier in this judgment. It appears that prior to 1950 profits accruing in the Indian States, later called Part B States, were exempt from tax under section 14(2)(c), unless they were received in or brought into the territories then referred to as British India or were assessable under section 12B or section 42. The first proviso to sub-section (1) as it stood at the relevant time dealt with losses accruing in the quondam Indian States and provided that losses incurred in the Indian States should be set off only against profits accruing in the Indian States. This was a reasonable provision, because an assessee who was not liable to tax in respect of his profits arising in the Indian States could not be allowed to set off his losses incurred in the Indian States against his profits arising in British India. Similarly, clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (2) enacted that losses incurred in an Indian State could be carried forward and set off only against profits accruing in an Indian State from the same business in a subsequent year. The argument on behalf of the respondent is that so far as a non-resident is concerned, he is not chargeable in respect of income accruing or arising without India and not received in India. Therefore, in his case it is unnecessary to go to the provisos, but section 24 itself has no application because sub-section (1) of section 24 when it refers to loss of profits or gains, has reference to taxable profits or taxable gains and sub-section (2) of section 24 can only be applied in a case where the loss cannot be set off under sub-section (1) because of the absence or inadequacy of profits etc. In other words, the argument is that section 24 is applicable only to such loss of profits and gains which if they had been profits and gains would have been assessable in British India or the taxable territories ; but in the case of non-residents, income accruing or arising without British India or without the taxable territories not being liable to be assessed, the loss of such profits and gains is not contemplated to be set off within the provisions of section 24, sub-sections (1) and (2)Mr. Kolah has pointed out that sub-section (2) of section 24 as also sub-section (1) talk of " any assessee " and he has argued that there is no reason why the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 24 should not be applicable to a non-resident assessee. He has further argued that whatever might have been the effect of the provisos in 1948-49, in 1950-51 Indore became part of the taxable territories and the assessee company became entitled to carry forward the losses up to six years and there is nothing in section 24(2) to prevent him from making the claim. We are unable to accept this argument as correct.. Reading the provisions in section 24 with the provisions in section 4(1)(a) and (c) and section 14(2)(c) it seems clear to us that section 24(1) when it talks of profits or gains has reference to taxable profits or taxable gains ; in other words, it has reference to such profits and gains as would have been assessable in British India or the taxable territories. It has no reference to income accruing or arising without British India or without the taxable territories which were not liable to be assessed in the case of non-residents. We are further of the view that for determining the nature of the losses under consideration in the present appeals, the relevant year was 1948-49, the year in which the losses occurred and the High Court rightly took the view that for the application of sub-section (2) of section 24, the losses must be such losses as could have been set off under sub-section (1) of section 24. We agree with the view expressed by the High Court that the loss amounting to Rs. 5, 19, 590 was not such a loss as could have been set off either under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 24