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

The appellant is a private limited company. The assessment year is 1955-56, for which the relevant previous year ended on June 30, 1954. The shareholders of the appellant-company are Mulraj Karsondas, members of his family, allied concerns and nominees only. In 1944 the appellant purchased the managing agency of the Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. for Rs. 6 lakhs and thereafter entered into a separate managing agency agreement with the managed company for a period of seventeen years. The appellants only source of income was this managing agency in the relevant year. Mulraj and his group also held among themselves 25, 000 ordinary and 10, 000 preference shares of the Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Mulraj entered into an agreement for sale of these shares with K.D. Jalan of Calcutta for a consideration of Rs. 45 lakhs; one of the terms of the agreement was that Mulraj would have the managing agency of the appellant-company terminated. In implementation of this agreement Mulraj wrote to the appellant-company on October 21, 1953, asking the company to give up the managing agency on receipt of a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation which he promised to pay. On the same day the appellant company passed a resolution accepting Mulrajs offer and wrote to the managed company, Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., tendering resignation of its office as managing agents. The resignation was in due course accepted. The assessee received from Mulraj a sum of Rs. 9, 95, 000 as compensation for premature termination of the managing agency, Rs. 5, 000 having been paid by Mulraj as brokerage to one Dhirajlal Maganlal. The amount received was credited to the capital reserve account in the appellants books for the year ending on June 30, 1954, described as "compensation for loss of office " In the assessment year 1955-56, for which the appellants previous year ended on June 30, 1954, the Income-tax Officer assessed the entire amount of Rs. 10 lakhs in the hands of the appellant-company under section 10(5A) of the Indian Income-tax Act; 1922. Section 10(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, states that the "tax shall be payable by an assessee under the head "Profits and gains of business, profession of vocation" in respect of the profits or gains of any business, profession or vocation carried on by him". Sub-section (5A) was inserted in section 10 by the Finance Act, 1955, with effect from April 1, 1955, the relevant part of which is in these terms"(5A) Any compensation or other payment due to or received by, -(a) a managing agent of an Indian company at or in connection with the termination or modification of his managing agency agreement with the company;(b) a manager of an Indian company at or in connection with the termination of his office or modification of the terms and conditions relating thereto;(c) any person, by whatever name called, managing the whole or subtantially the whole affairs of any other company in the taxable territories, at or in connection with the termination of his office or the modification of the terms and conditions relating thereto;(d) any person, by whatever name called, holding an agency in the taxable territories, for any part of the activities relating to the business of any other person, at or in connection with the termination of his agency or the modification of the terms and conditions relating thereto;shall be deemed to be profits and gains of a business carried on by the managing agent, manager or other person, as the case may be, and shall be liable to taxcompany preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the order of the Income-tax Officer. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal holding that section 10(5A) created a new source of income for which the previous year was not the previous year for the managing agency business which ended on June 30, 1954, that the compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs which the appellant received in October, 1953, fell in the financial year 1953-54, which would be the previous year for this income for which the assessment year was 1954-55, which was before sub-section (5A) of section 10 was enacted, and the fact that the appellant had entered the amount in its books for the year that ended on June 30, 1954, could not be taken as an exercise of option by the assessee accepting the said year as the previous year in respect of the receipt. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner further held that if at all the amount was taxable in the assessment year 1955-56, the assessee was entitled to a deduction of Rs. 6 lakhs paid for acquiring the managing agency. The department took an appeal to the Tribunal against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal was of opinion that section 10(5A) only regards the compensation received by the managing agent as profits 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 arefirst 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.

Reasoning:
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.