Case: Sevantilal Maneklal Sheth Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central),Bombay

2. In the year 1951 the assessee Maneklal Ujamshi (hereinafter referred to as the assessee made a gift of 1184 ordinary and 155 preference shares in Changdeo Sugar Mills Ltd. to his wife Bai Laxmibai. The total value of these transferred shares on the date of the transfer was Rs. 69,730. Subsequent to the transfer the company converted the preference shares into ordinary shares giving the shareholders 8 ordinary shares for each preference share with the result that on December 31, 1954, Bai Laxmibai held in all 2,424 ordinary shares of the mills. Out of these 2,424 shares, Bai Laxmibai sold 2,400 shares on August 1, 1956, for the sum of Rs. 1,54,800 resulting in capital gain of Rs. 70,860 as computed under S. 12-B of the Income-tax Act. The whole amount realised by the sale of the shares was deposited by Bai Laxmibai with M/s. A. H. Bhivandiwalla and Co., in which Maneklal as well as his son, Sevantilal, happened to be partners. The amount deposited by Bai Laxmibai fetched a yearly interest of Rs. 9,288. In the assessment of Maneklal for the assess ment year 1957-58 the Income-tax Officer included the amount of Rs. 70,860 which we, the profit made by Bai Laxmibai on the sale of the shares, as income of Maneklal under S. 16 (3) (a) (iii) of the Indian Income-tax Act. Similarly, in the assessment of Maneklal for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60, the Income-tax Officer included in each year the amount of Rs. 9,288 which was the interest earned by Bai Laxmibai on the deposit of the sale proceeds with M/s. Bhivandiwalla and Co. as the income of Maneklal under S. 16 (3) (a) (iii). According to the Income-tax Officer the gain which had resulted from the sale of the shares was the income of the wife of the assessee which arose directly or indirectly from the assets transferred by the assessee to his wife otherwise than for adequate consideration and therefore was required to be included in the computation of the total income of Maneklal. The income-tax Officer also took the view that the amount of interest which Bai Laxmibai had received from the sale proceeds deposited by her with M/s. Bhivandiwalla and Co. was also income of the wife of Maneklal which arose directly or indirectly from the assets transferred by Maneklal to her. Accordingly, in the assessment order for the first year, the Income tax Officer included the amount of Rs. 70,860 and in the assessment orders for the next two years, he included the amount of Rupees 9,288 in the total taxable income of Maneklal. Appeals against all these three assessment orders were filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In the appeal against the first assessment order for the assessment year l957-58 the Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with the view taken by the Income-tax Officer and dismissed the appeal. In the other two appeals he partly allowed the appeals taking he view that only that part of the interest which was attributable to the monetary value of the shares covered by the shares at the time of the gift was liable to be included in the total income of Maneklal in accordance with the provisions of S. 16 (3) (a) (iii) and the balance could not be included under the said provision. Since the monetary value of the shares gifted to Bai Laxmibai at the time when the gift was made was only Rs. 69,730 the interest attributable to it worked out at Rs. 4,183. Out of the total interest of Rs. 9,288 which was received by Bai Laxmibai in each of those years, he directed that only an amount of Rs. 4,183 should be included in the total income of Maneklal in each of those two years and the balance of Rs. 5,105 should be deleted. Against the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on these appeals the assessee appealed to the Appellate Tribunal. The Department. on the other hand, appealed against the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commr. for the years 1958-59 and l959-60 in so far as they allowed exemption in respect of Rs. 4,183 out of the total amount of Rs. 9,288 for each year. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee with regard to the assessment year 1957-58. For the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeals of the Department and dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 1959-60. According to these decisions of the Appellate Tribunal the result was that for the assessment years 1957-58 the order of the Income-tax Officer that the amount of Rs. 70,860 which was the profit or gain on the sale of the shares by Bai Laxmibai was liable to be included in the total income of Maneklal was upheld and for the later two years the entire amount of interest viz., Rs. 9,288 was held to be liable to be included in the total income of Maneklal in each of those two years. Thereafter, at the instance of the assessee, the Appellate Tribunal stated a case to the High Court on the following questions of law"1. Whether in computing the total income of Maneklal for the assessment year 1957-58, the sum of Rs 70.860 has been properly included therein in accordance with the provisions of S. 16 (3) (a) (iii) of the Income-tax Act. 1922 ?2. Whether in computing the total income of Maneklal for the assessment year 1958-59, the sum of Rs. 5,l04 has been properly included therein in accordance with provisions of S. 16 (3) (a) (iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922?3. Whether in computing the total income of Maneklal for the assessment year 1959-60, the sum of Rs. 4,183 has been properly included therein in accordance with the provisions of S. 16 (3) (a) (iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922?4 Whether in computing the total income of Maneklal for the assessment year 1959-60, the sum of Rs. 5,105 has been properly included therein in accordance with the provisions of S. 16 (3) (a) (iii) of the Income-tax Act. 1922 ?"By its Judgment dated February 19,1965 the High Court answered the first question in the affirmative and against the assessee. It answered questions Nos. 2 and 4 in favour of the assesses and against the Department. As regards question No. 3, the High Court answered it in the affirmative and in favour of the Department The reason was that Counsel for the assessee did not press it or challenge the correctness of the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal and accepted as correct the conclusion of the Tribunal with regard to the point involved in that question.

Court's reasoning:
In our opinion there is no logical distinction between income arising from the asset transferred to the wife and arising from the sale of the assets so transferred. The profits or gains which arise from the sale of the asset would arise or spring from the asset, although the operation by which the profits or gains is made to arise out of the asset is the operation of the sale. If the asset is employed, say by way of investment and produces income, the income arises or springs from the asset; the operation, which causes the income to spring from the asset, is the operation of the investment. In the operation of the investment, income is produced while the asset continues to belong to the assessee, while in the operation of a sale gain is produced, which is still income, but in the process the title to the asset is parted with. Although the processes involved in the two cases are different the gain which has resulted to the owner of the asset, in each case, is the gain, which has sprung up or arisen from the asset. There is hence no warrant for the argument that the capital gain, not income arising from the assets, but it is income, which arises from a source which is different from the asset itselfIt is true that at the time when S. 16 (3) (a) (iii) was enacted, the definition of income did not include capital gains but capital gains having been brought within the meaning of income, in S. 2 (6-C) the expression income as used in S. 16 (3) (a) (iii) must be construed according to the amended definition of the word and would, therefore, include capital gains. There is nothing in the context or language of S. 16 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act to suggest that capital gains are excluded from its scope. We see no reason why a restricted interpretation should be given to the provisions of S. 16 (3) (a) (iii) as contended for the appellant. On the contrary, the object of the enactment of the section is to prevent avoidance of tax or reducing the incidence of tax on the part of the assesses by transfer of his assets to his wife or minor child. It is a sound rule of interpretation that a statute should be so construed as to prevent the mischief and to advance the remedy according to the true intention of the makers of the statute.We are, therefore, unable to accept Mr. Mehtas argument on this aspect of the case.