Case: Liquidators of Pursa Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar

The reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench consisting of Shearer and Sarjoo Prasad JJ. and after a prolonged hearing the learned Judges delivered separate judgments on the 27th February, 1951, giving divergent answers to the questions, Shearer J. answering both the questions in the negative and Sarjoo Prasad J. giving an affirmative answer to both of them. The matter thereupon was placed before a third Judge, Ramaswami J., who, after a fresh hearing delivered his judgment on the 16th May, 1951, agreeing with Sarjoo Prasad J. on the first question and with Shearer J. on the second question. The result was that the High Court by a majority decision answered the first question in the affirmative, i.e., against the assessee, and the second question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee.        The assessee applied to the High Court for leave to appeal to this court against the High Courts decision on the first question. The High Court having declined to grant the necessary certificate the assessee applied for and obtained the special leave of this court to prefer the present appeal. The department has not preferred any appeal against the High Courts decision on the second question and nothing further need be said about that question.The controversy arose in course of the proceedings for the assessment of Pursa Ltd., to income-tax for the assessment year 1945-1946, the relevant accounting year covering the period between the 1st October, 1943, to 30th September, 1944. Pursa Ltd., was a company incorporated in 1905 under the Indian Companies Act but all its shareholders and directors were residents in the United Kingdom. The business of the company was that of growers of sugarcane, manufacturers of sugar and dealers in sugar. It is common ground that the crushing season for the manufacture of sugar is from December to April of each year. It appears that towards the end of 1942 an attempt was made to sell the entire business of the company but such attempt did not succeed. It appears from the case filed by the respondent in this appeal that in the middle of 1943 the directors of the company commenced negotiations for the sale of the factory and other assets of the company with the ultimate object of winding up the company. From the correspondence, affidavit and other materials placed before the tribunal and referred to by Sarjoo Prasad J. in his judgment it appears that on the 9th August, 1943, an inventory was prepared and a firm offer was received from Dalmia Jain & Company Limited, for the purchase of the factory and stores as on that date. This offer was on the 16th August, 1943, communicated by cable to the directors in England. On the 20th August, 1943, the directors asked the local managers in India to proceed with the matter in anticipation of the sanction of the shareholders which the directors expected to obtain at an extraordinary general meeting to be held very shortly. That meeting, however, was held on the 8th October, 1943, i.e., 8 days after the accounting year had started. At that meeting the firm offer of Dalmia Jain & Company Ltd. was accepted and a concluded agreement for sale came into existence. Thereafter instructions were given to the solicitors to draw up the necessary documents.On the 7th December, 1943, a written memorandum of agreement was executed whereby the company agreed to sell and demise to Dalmia Jain & Company Ltd., free from all mortgages and charges at and for the price of rupees twenty-eight lacs all the lands, buildings, machinery and plant and all vats, reservoirs, cisterns, pumps, machinery, engines, boilers, plant, implements, utensils, tramways, furniture, stores, articles and things as on the night day of August, one thousand nine hundred and forty-three (subject to subsequent use and consumption in the ordinary course of business) used in connection with the said sugar factory, but excepting stocks of manufactured sugar and stocks of grain in godown on the ninth day of August, one thousand nine hundred and forty-three and all stores and other articles bought or received by the company after that date. Dalmia Jain & Company Ltd., paid the sum of rupees twenty-eight lacs on the same day and on the 10 December, 1943, they got possession of the factory. On the date of the aforesaid sale, the company possessed sugar stock valued at rupees six lacs which was excluded from the sale. This stock of sugar the company continued to sell up to June, 1944. It is said that the said stock of sugar was excluded because at the time it was not possible to know at what date such a sale would be concluded and the sugar produced in 1943 had to be sold by and through the exclusive selling agents of the company under a contract entered into with them. It is, however, not disputed that between the 9th August, 1943, when the firm offer was obtained and the 10th December, 1943, when possession of the factory was made over to Dalmia Jain & Company Ltd., the company never used the machinery and plant for the purpose of manufacturing sugar or for any other purpose except that of keeping them in trim and running order. Indeed, throughout the accounting period the machinery and plant were not used by the company.The company went into voluntary liquidation on the 20th June, 1945. The reason for the delay in putting the company into liquidation is said to have been caused by considerable legal difficulties with regard to the transfer of certain mokarari lands belonging to the company. The liquidators appointed by the shareholders of the company represented the company in the matter of proceedings for assessment of the company for the assessment year 1945-46.In the course of these assessment proceedings the Income-tax Officer on the 21st February, 1947, wrote a letter to the liquidators asking for elucidation on certain points. Amongst other things, the Income-tax officer wanted to know the liquidators objection why the companys activities during the previous year might not be treated as amounting to a realization of assets on impending liquidation rather than to carrying on of business within the meaning of the Income-tax Act. To this letter an answer was sent by the liquidators on the 19th March, 1947, pointing out that the company had gone into liquidation on the 20th June, 1945, and that in view of the date of liquidation the liquidators could not agree that the company was not carrying on business during the year ended 30th September, 1944, and they further pointed that the various debits contained in the sugar factory accounts were those incurred in carrying on the companys business. By this letter dated the 17th May, 1947, the Income-tax Officer claimed that large profits which had been made by the company on the sale of their machinery and plant were taxable under the second proviso to section 10(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act and called upon the liquidators to retain sufficient funds and assets in their hands to meet the heavy tax liabilities that might eventually arise and also to warn the shareholders accordingly. He also asked for certain information which, however, the liquidators did not furnish. The liquidators, in their letter in reply dated the 22nd May, 1947, did not agree that the profits were taxable, for the profits to which reference had been made were not profits arising from a business carried on by the company but were profits arising from the company ceasing to carry on business. The Income-tax Officer, however, by his order dated the 21st June, 1947, held that the profits of the sale of machinery and plant were liable to assessment under section 10(2)(vii) of the Act and added a sum of Rs. 13, 05, 144 to the profits.The Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax having dismissed the liquidators appeal on the 30th January, 1947, the liquidators went up on further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. By its order dated the 17th May, 1949, the tribunal dismissed that appeal. Upon an application under section 66(1) of the Act the tribunal stated a case to the High Court referring the two questions hereinbefore set out.

Reasoning: Therefore, it is clear that the tax is payable only in respect of the profits or gains of the business which is carried on by the assessee. Sub-section (2) permits allowances to be made before the taxable profits are ascertained. It is not necessary, for the purposes of the present appeal, to express any opinion on that point on which the High Courts have expressed different views. It is, however, clear that in order to attract the operation of clauses (v), (vi) and (vii) the machinery and plant must be such as were used, in whatever sense that word is taken, at least for a part of the accounting year. If the machinery and plant have not at all been used at any time during the accounting year no allowance can be claimed under clause (vii) in respect of them and the second proviso also does not come into operation. It appears to us that the tribunal misdirected itself in law as to the meaning and import of the relevant provisions of section 10 of the Act. It completely overlooked the fact which is plainly in evidence on the record that the machinery and plant which were sold had not at all been used for the purpose of the business carried on in the accounting year and consequently the second proviso to section 10(2)(vii) could have no application to the sale proceeds of such machinery and plant. In fact the entire decision of the tribunal was vitiated by its failure to keep in view the true meaning and scope of section 10(2)(vii) and cannot, therefore, be supported.It further appears to us that in the statement of the case the tribunal was not merely stating something in the nature of a primary fact but was also drawing a conclusion which is to a certain extent contrary to the primary finding. As is stated clearly in the statement of the case, the decision of the tribunal was based on two considerations. The first consideration was founded on an admission by the liquidators that the company had been carrying on its business up to the date of the sale of the machinery on the 7th December, 1943. This admission is quite consistent with the case that the company was only selling its stock of sugar and not doing any business of manufacture of sugar. Indeed, the manufacturing process does not begin until December of each year and the memorandum of agreement was made on the 7th December, 1943, and possession was delivered to the purchaser on the 10th December 1943. It is nobodys case and it has not been found that the company had manufactured any sugar during the whole of the accounting year. Therefore, this finding that the company carried on its business up to the 7th December, 1943, certainly does not indicate that the company was also carrying on any business of growing sugarcane or manufacturing sugar by the use of the machinery or plant in question. The second finding that the company carried on business even after the sale of the machinery and the plant clearly indicates that business had nothing to do with the machinery or plant. Both the findings, therefore, are inconclusive. The matter, however, does not rest there. It appears to us that the findings of fact, taken literally, cannot support the decision of the tribunal. If, as held by the tribunal, "the sale of the machinery was a part of the applicant companys carrying on of the business" then the sale must be regarded as an ordinary operation of such business and consequently the profits arising out of such ordinary business operation would be assessable under the provisions of section 10(1) and it would not be necessary to have recourse to the statutory fiction created by the second proviso to clause (vii) under which the excess of the sale proceeds over the written down value is to be deemed to be profit of the business. If the profits on the sale of the machinery and plant are to be made assessable under the second proviso, as has been done by the tribunal, then it must be conceded that these deemed profits were not in reality the profits of the business carried on by the company and, therefore, the sale transaction which brought in these profits was not in fact part of the companys business, which conclusion again will be inconsistent with the finding of fact if the business is not understood as limited only to the selling of sugar.For reasons stated above, it appears to us that having misdirected itself in law as to the scope and effect of the relevant portions of sections 10 of the Act the tribunal did not approach the facts from a proper angle and, further, that its findings cannot, in the circumstances of this case, be given such sanctity as would exclude the same from review by the High Court or this court. Turning to the facts to be gathered from the records it is quite clear that the intention of the company was to discontinue its business and the sale of the machinery and plant was a step in the process of the winding up of its business. The sale of the machinery and plant was not an operation in furtherance of the business carried on by the company but was a realisation of its assets in the process of gradual winding up of its business which eventually culminated in the voluntary liquidation of the company. Even if the sale of the stock of sugar be regarded as carrying on of business by the company and not a realisation of its assets with a view to winding up, the machinery or plant not being used during the accounting year at all and in any event not having had any connection with the carrying on of that limited business during the accounting year, section 10(2)(vii) can have no application to the sale of any such machinery or plant. In this view of the matter, the answer to the first question should be in the negative and we answer accordingly.