COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI v.

MIS. T.V. SUNDARAM IYENGAR AND SONS LTD.

SEPTEMBER 11, 1996

(A.M. AHMADI, CJ., B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND

SUHAS C. SEN. JJ.]

Income Tax Act 1961-Sections 28(1), 41(1)--Business Income-Capital Receipts-From trading transactions-Deposits received-{fnclaimed and C time barred retained by the assessee-Treated as income of the assessee-Held, the money was received by the assessee in course of carrying on its business-Although it was treated as deposit and was of capital nature at the point of time it was received, by efflux of time the money had become the assessee's own money-Assessee itself has treated the money as its own money and taken the amount to its profit and loss account-Hence such amounts D rightly taken as income for the purposes of Income tax.

The respondent assessee received deposits in the course of the carrying on its business. The deposits were of capital nature at the point of time of receipt by the assesseto and were treated as capital receipts. Some of the deposits were neither claimed by nor returned to the depositor.

During the assessment, the appellants found that the assessee had transferred certain amount to the profit and loss account of the company. It was found that these amounts were not included in the total Income of the assessee. The sums were stated to be credit balance standing in favour of

the customers of the company.· Since these balances were not claimed by F the customers, the amounts were transferred by the assessee to the profit and loss account. The Income Tax officer held that the surplus had arisen as a result of trade transactions; the amounts had a character of income and had to be added as income of the assessee for the purpose of income tax assessment;

On appeal, the Commissioner of Income tax deleted the additions on the ground that the amounts were excess trading advances given by the customer to the assessee, therefore they were not revenue receipts but capital receipts; and when the assessee wrote back such a credit balance,

it did not constitute part ofits taxable income. The Tribunal dismissed the H 785

A appeal preferred by the Revenue and also refused to make a Reference to the High Court, as according to it no question of law arose in this case.

The High Court disposed of the application made to it under +.

S.256(2) and held that the matter stood concluded in the light of the !-"' decision of the Madras High court in the case of Commissioner of Income B Tax, Tamil Nadu-1 v, A. V.M. Ltd., (1984) 146, ITR 355. Aggrieved by the High Court's order, the Revenue preferred the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

c HELD : 1.1. The amounts in question were not in the nature or security deposits held by the assessee for performance or contract by Its constituents. The amounts were depleted by adjustments made from time to time. The amounts were not given and retained as security to be retained tlll the lulntment or the contract. The deposits were taken in course or the trade and adjustments were made against these deposits In course or D trade. Tlie unclaimed surplus retained by . the assessee was Its trade receipt. The assessee itself had treated the amount as its trade receipt by • bringing It to Its pront and loss account. (793-E; H; 794A1 ~

Morley (H.M. Inspector of Taxes) v. Messrs. Tattersall, (1939) 7 ITR

E 316 CA, re.rerred to.

1.2. The assessee, because or the trading operation had become richer by the amount which it transferred to its proftt and loss account.

The moneys had arisen out ol ordinary trading transactions. Although the amounts received originally was not income but the amounts having

F remained with the assessee for a long period, by lapse or time, the claim of the deposit became time barred and the amount attained a totally different quality. It became a deftnite trade surplus. [796-8)

Punjab Steel Scrap Merchants Association Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab, (1961) 43 ITR 164, referred to. ,

G 1.3., An amount received in course of trading transaction, even '<:::: though it is not taxable in the year of receipt as being of revenue character, changes its character when th.e amounts becomes the assessee's own money because oflimitation or by any other statutory or contractual right. When such a thing happens, common sense demands that the amount should be H treated as income of the assessee.

....

C.l.'L v. T.V.SUNDARAMIYENGARANDSONS LTD. [SEN, J.] 787

Punjab Distilling Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, A Simla, (1959) 35 ITR 519, referred to.

2.1. The money was received by the assessee Jn the course or carrying on Its business. Although It was treated as deposit and was or cdpital nature at the point of time It was received, by emux of time the money had B become the assessee's own money. What remained after adjustment of the deposits had not been claimed by the customers. The claims of the cus tomers have become barred by limitation. n1e assessee Itself has treated the money as Its own money and taken the amount to Its pront and loss account. n1ere Is no explanation from the assessee why the surplus. money was taken to Its pront and loss account even If It was somebody else's C money. In fact what the assessee did was the common sense way of dealing with the amounts. [796CD]

Commissio11er of Income Tax, West Bengal, I v. I. V. S1111dersons and Morgans, (1970) 75 ITR 433; Pioneer Co11solidated Company of India Ltd.

v. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P., (1976) 104 ITR 686; Commissioner D of /11come Tax, Tamil Nadu-1. v. A. V.M. Ltd., (1984) 146 ITR 355; Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-IV v. Batliboi and Co. Pvt. Ltd., (1984) 149 ITR 604 and Jay's 771e Jewellers Ltd. v. Com111issio11er of lnla11d Revenue, 29 Tax Cases 274, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal o. 11864-67 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 6.11.89 of the Madras High Court in T.C.P. Nos. 244-47 of 1989.

S.C. Manchanda, S.N. Terdol and R. Sathish for the Appellant.

A.T.M. Sampath and V. Balaji for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SEN, J. Leave granted.

The amounts in dispute in this case are small 'and the tax effect is even smaller. We would have declined to go into the dispute at this stage,

but for the fact that an interesting question of law is iilvol\red.

 H ·

The income tax assessment of M/s. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 were completed on 1st August, 1984. The Income Tax Officer found that the assessee had transferred,, an amount of Rs. 17,381 to the profit and loss account of the company during the accounting period ended on 31st March, 1982 (assessment year 1982-83), and an amount of Rs. 38,975 during the accounting period ended on 31st March, 1983 (assessment year 1983-84). But these .amounts were not included in the total income of the assessee. The sums were stated to be credit balances standing in favour of the customers of the company. Since these balances were not claimed by the customers, the amounts were transferred by the assessee to the profit and loss account.

C There is no dispute that the amount was received by the assessee in course of trade transactions. The Income Tax Officer was of the view that because the surplus had arisen as a result of trade transactions, the amounts had a character of income and had to be added as income of the assessee for the

purpose of income tax assessment.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), held in his order that since the parties were not claiming these amounts for a long time, the asscssee wrote back these amounts by crediting them to profit and loss account. Such an amount cannot lie treated as income either under Section 41(1) or under Section 28, since these were excess trading advances given E by the clients to the assessee. In the first instance, these amounts were not revenue receipts, but were capital receipts. When the assessee writes back such a credit balance, it would not constitute part of his taxable income.

The additions were, therefore, deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax.

On further appeal, the Tribunal took the same view and rejected the contention of the department that these amounts were essentially trading receipts and were in a revenue nature and, therefore, were liable to be included in the computation of assessee's taxable income. The tribunal took note of the decision of Punjab H\gh Court in the case of Punjab Steel Scrap G Merchants' Association Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab, 43 1.T.R. 164 but held that the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu-1 v. A.V.M. Ltd., 146 I.T.R. 355 was binding upon it and, therefore, dismissed the appeal.

H An application was made to the tribunal to refer the question of law

C.l.T. v. T.V.SUNDARAMIYENGARANDSONSLTD. [SEN,.!.] 789

arising out of the order of the tribunal to the High Court. The application A was dismissed by the tribunal holding that no question of law arose in this case. On further application to the High Court under Section 256(2), the High Court held that the question now sought to be agitated was completely concluded by the d, ecision of that Court in the case of A. V.M. Ltd. (supra). Hence this Appeal.

It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that there is a conflict of decisions among the High Courts on this question. Some of the High Courts have taken the view that. if deposits taken by the company in course of its trading operations were not refunded at all or in full, the amounts retained by the assessee and tai>en to profit and loss account C would constitute its income. The second view which has been adopted by some other High Courts is that if the deposits taken were ?riginally of a capital nature, its character will not change merely by lapse of time and even when the amount is taken to the profit and loss account of the assessee. The origin of the amouct may be the business activity of the assessee. But every receipt in the business carried out by the assessee is D not income.

It has been urged that on review of the conflicting decisions of the Tribunals, the following question of law raised by the Department should have been referred to the High Court for its decision : E

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal is right in law in deleting the addition made by the Income Tax Officer representing unclaimed sundry credit balances written back to the.Profit & Loss Account by the assessee during the previous year relevant for the assessment year under F consideration?

It may be mentioned that three other questions of law on some. other points decided by the Tribunal were directed to be referred to the High Court under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act. Since the case relates G to assessments for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84, we have decided to deal with and answer the question instead of directing a reference to the High Court for its opinion. The assessee had received deposits in course of its business which were originally treated as capital receipts. Some of the deposits were neither claimed by nor returned to the depositors. There is no dispute that the deposits were received in course H

A of the carrying on of the business of the assessee. The only point to be decided is that even though the deposits were of capital nature at the point of time of receipt by the assessee, could its character change by ef flux of time? In the case of Morley (H.M. lllspector of Taxes) v. Messrs. Tattersall,

(1939) 7 ITR 316 CA, it was laid down by Lord Greene that the taxability

of a receipt was fixed with reference to its character at the moment it was ,.

B received and that merely because the recepient treated it subsequently in his income account as his own did not alter that character. This principle of law is the basis of several judgments delivered on this issue by our courts.

In some cases, the principle laid down by Lord Greene has not been followed because of special facts, but the principle as such has not been c doubted. - We shall refer to some of the cases decided by our courts to see how this principle was understood and applied.

D In the case of Punjab Steel Scrap Merchants' Association Ltd. v.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab, (1961) 43 ITR 164, the assessee company was a dealer in scrap iron. It received from its constituents a deposit in advance for the supply of scrap. If the price of scrap iron .... delivered was more than the amount deposited, the assessee recovered the excess. Where the price of scrap iron delivered was less than the amount E deposited and a surplus remained with the assessee and the constituents did not claim the excess amount, the assessee retained the amounts to the credit of the constituents. Unclaimed credit balances, after a period of three years were transferred by the company to its profit and loss account.

The amounts so transferred to the profit and loss account were held by F the Punjab High Court to be trading receipts and liable to be included in the computation of the assessee's taxable income. It was held that the amounts in question were payments towards price of the scrap iron which was to be supplied to the constituents. They were essentially trading receipts. The case of Morley v. Tattersall (supra) was distinguished on the

G ground that in that case the moneys received by Tattersall were never the

'-. moneys of the firm but moneys of thecustomers. ..,

In the case of Punjab Distilling Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Simla, (1959) 35 I.T.R. 510, the assessee carried on business as a distiller of country liquor and sold the produce of its distillery to H licensed wholesalers. Under a scheme devised by the Government, the

...

...

C.l.T. v. T.V. SUNDARAM IYENGAR AND SONS L"ffi. (SEN, J.) 791

distiller used to charge the wholesalers a price for the bottles in which the A liquor was supplied at rates fixed by the Government, which the distiller was bound to repay when the bottles were returned. Additionally, the assessee took from the wholesal:':rs certain further amounts described as security deposits without the Government's sanction and entirely as a condition imposed by the assessee itself for the sale of its liquor. The moneys described as security deposits were also returned as and when the bottles were returned. The price of the bottles received by the assessee was entered by it in its general trading account while the additional sum was entered in the general ledger under the heading "empty bottles return security deposit account". After the bottles were returned; the assessee was

left with a surplus in the security deposit account. The question was C whether this amount left with the assessee even after the refunds were made could be treated as business income of tJ, e assessee. It was held by a Bench of Three Judges of this Court that the additional amounts taken as deposits were integral parts of the commercial transactions of the ale of liquor in bottles. When they were paid, they were the moneys of the D assessee and remained thereafter the moneys of the assessee. They were the assessee's trading receipts. The balance of these additional sums left after the refunds, were held to be assessable to tax. The case of Morley v.

Tattersall (supra) was distinguished, by observing "it was never contended that the amounts when received as price of the constituent's horses sold were Tattersall's income and the only contention was that they became E income upon being transferred to the credit of the partners." It was observed that that case turned on the fact that the moneys received by Tattersall were never its moneys; they had been received on behalf of others and that receipt only created a liability towards Tattersall. It was held, "Now it seems to us quite impossible to say that the amounts with which we are concerned were no( the appellant's moneys in the sense that

the constituents' moneys in the hands of Tattersall were not its own." Later on, in the judgment, it was pointed out that the moneys were part of the transactions of sale of liquor which produced the profit and, therefore, they had a profit-making quality.

In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal-Iv. Sa11derso11s and Morga11s, {1970) 75 ITR 433, principle of Morley v. Tattersall

(supra) was applied. In that case, the question was whether interest received by a solicitor on the amounts belonging to his clients was taxable

as his income. This Court held that amounts received from his clients by a H

SUPREMECOURTREPORTS (1996)SUPP.5S.C.R.

A solicitor were not trading receipts, but were in fiduciary capacity. Therefore, the principles laid down in Tattersa//'s case will apply.

In the case of Pioneer Consolidated Company of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P., (1976) 104 ITR 686, the assessee transferred an amount of Rs. 18,295.00 to its profit and loss account in the previous B year relevant to the assessment year 1957-58. This amount was mainly composed of refunds of customs and other duties paid on behalf of its customers. The unclaimed surplus was treated as income of the assessee by the Department. It was held that though the amount was not. income when it was realised, but when it was not claimed by the customers and c the assessee chose to treat the unclaimed balance as its income and showed it in its account as such, it could not be said that the income tax authorities committed an error in accepting the statement of the assessee.

In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu-J v. A. V.M.

D Ltd., (1984) 146 ITR 355, the assessee was a distributor of films. It took security deposits from the exhibitors before handing over the films for exhibition. Sometimes the exhibitors did not send the collections but instructed the assessee to set off or adjust its security deposits against overdue collections. Sometimes, the deposits were kept for the purpose of adjustment either wholly or in part against dues of the exhibitor towards E payment of collections. It happened that even after adjustment some balance was still left in deposits with the assessee. No one came forward to claim these deposits and the assessee after waiting for five years decided to appropriate the amounts for its own use by making suitable book entries.

It was held the amount could be treated as chargeable receipts of the F assessee from trade.

In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-IV v.

Batliboi and Co. Pvt. Ltd., (1984) 149 ITR 604, the Bombay High Court dealt with a case where the assessee was a dealer in machinery. The

G practice of the assessee company was to take deposits from intending purchasers. The deposits were later adjusted towards purchase price of the machinery that were sold. The surplus deposits, if any, were not generally refunded to the customers. Occasionally, the assessee was unable to refund some of the excess deposits for various reasons. Such excess deposits were written off in the books of the assessee by transferring them to the profit H and loss account. It was held by the Division Bench of the Bombay High

' "

C.l.T. v. T.V. SUNDAl~AM IYENGA!lAND SONS LTD. [SEN, J.] 793

Court that having regard to the nature of the transaction, the receipts in A question could not be considered as amounts held by the assessee for the benefit of anybody else. The deposits were in respect of specific transaction of sale and were adjusted towards the purchase price of the machinery that ;. were sold. It was more in the nature of a trade receipt, especially when the

'"" assessee brought such surplus deposits remaining in hands to its profit and B loss account. Therefore, the amount was taxable as trade receipt in the hands of the assessee.

There is no dispute that the deposits in the case before us were received from trade parties who had not made any claim for repayment of

o4 the balance. The Income Tax Officer has pointed out that the amount had c arisen as a result of trading transaction and had a character of income. The Tribunal has, however, held that the amount received in course of trade was of capital nature. The Tribunal, thereafter, straightaway applied the principle of Morley v. Tattersall (supra) and held since it was of a capital

~ nature at the time of the receipt, it could not become assessee's income D later on.

.-1 We are unable to uphold the decision of the Tribunal. The amounts were not in the nature of security deposits held by the assessee for performance of contract by its constituents. As it appears from the facts of

~ the case, the amounts were depleted by adjustments made from time to c

time. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) found that the assessee wrote back the amounts to its profit and loss account because the various i trading parties did not claim these amounts for a long time. The amounts 1 .. ..' represented credit balances in the name of the trading parties and was taken to its profit and loss account. The Commissioner of Income Tax F (Appeal) held that these amounts were not revenue receipts but were of capital nature. Provisions of Section 41(1) were not attracted in the facts of this case because the assessee's liability to pay back the amounts to its customers had not ceased. The Tribunal agreed with this view.

> We fail to sec how these deposits were in any way different from the G _,..,.

deposits which came for consideration in the case of Punjab Distilling I11dustlies Ltd. v. Commissioner of l11come Tax, Simla, (1959) 35 ITR 519.

The amounts were not given and retained as security to be retained till the

~ fulfilment of the contract. There is no finding to that effect. The deposits were taken in course of the trade and adjustments were made against these H

A deposits in course of trade. The unclaimed surplus retained by the assessee will be its trade receipt. The assessee itself treated the amount as its trade receipt by bringing it to its profit and loss account.

The basic fact in Morley v. Tattersall (supra) was that Tattersall was an auctioneer. He sold horses on behalf of his clients. The sale proceeds were not his money but were his clients' money. Tattersall was entitled to receive only commission out of the sale proceeds. The agreement between Tattersall and his customers was that the sale proceeds would be returned to the customers as and when demanded and not earlier. Sometimes the customers did not demand the payment of the sale proceeds immediately.

C Such amount remained with Tattersall. But important point was that the amount was not returnable unless and until demanded by the customers.

There was no question of the claim of the customers being barred by limitation in that case. When the amount was taken to the accounts of the partners, it was held by Lord Greene that character of the receipt did not D change and the amount did not become a trading receipt in the hand of Tattersall.

Tattersall's case was explained and distin&ruished in the case of Jay's- The Jewellers Ltd. v. Commissioners of I11la11d Revenue, 29 Tax Cases 274.

In that case, the assessee company carried on business of Jewellers and pawnbrokers. In course of its business of pawnbroking, it received various articles as pledges on the strength of which it lent money. The pledges were of three types - (a) pledges pawned for a sum of ten shillings or under; (b) pledges pawned for a sum exceeding ten shillings and not exceeding ten pounds; and (c) pledges pawned for a sum exceeding ten pounds. The business of pawnbroking was controlled by the Pawnbrokers Act, 1872. It w1s pointed out in that Act that if a pledge pawned for ten shillings or under was not redeemed within the year of redemption and days of grace, the pledged article would become pawnbrokers' absolute property. There was no dispute that profit arising out of sale of such pledged article would be the pawnbrokers' income. Under the second type of pledges which were G pawned for a sum exceeding ten shillings and not exceeding ten pounds, the pledged article did not become the property of the pawnbrokers. It the pledges were sold for more than the amount of the loan and interest due at the time of sale, the excess had to be paid to the pawner on demand provided the demand was made within three years after the sale. In the H third type of case, where pledges were pawned for a sum exceeding ten

C.l.T.v. T.V.SUNDARAM IYENGAR AND SONS LTD. [SEN, J.] 795

pounds, there was no time limit for return of the excess amount to the A pawners after the sale. But limitation set in after six years. It was held in that case that the surplus receipts in the pawnbrokers' trade became assessable profits. The Court agreed with the assessee's contention that , these surpluses were debts owed to the customers and that for three years or si, x years as the case may be, the company could be called upon to pay the amount to the customers. The whole amount was a legal liability. The B

Court also agreed with the assessee's contention that the surpluses were not trading receipts in the year in which they were received. However, the Court went on to hold :

"The true accountancy view would, I think,, demand that these sums c should be treated as paid into a suspense account, and should so appear in the balance sheet. The surpluses should not be brought into the annual trading account as areceipt at the time they are received. Only time will show what their ultimate fate and character will be. After three years that fate is such, as to one class of D surplus, that in so far as the suspense account has not been reduced by payments to clients, that part' of it which is remaining becomes by operation of law a receipt of the Company, and ought to be transferred from the suspense account and appear in the profit and loss account for that year as a receipt and profit. That is what it in fact is. /11 that year Jays become the richer by the amoullt which E automatically becomes theirs, a11d that asset arises out of a11 ordinary trade transactio11. It seems to me to be the common-sense way of dealing with these matters."

--'

The principle laid down by Atkinson, J. applies in full force to the F facts of this case. If a common sense view of the matter is taken, the assessee, because of the crading operation, had become richer by the amount which it transferred to its profit and loss account. The moneys had arisen out of ordinary trading transactions. Although the amounts received ,. originally was not of income nature, the amounts remained with the asses- G ... see for a long period unclaimed by the trade parties. By lapse of time, the claim of the deposit became time barred and the amount attained a totally different quality. It became a definite trade surplus. Atkinson, J. pointed out that in Tattersall's case no trading asset was created. Mere change of method of book-keeping had taken place. But, where a new asset came into bring automatically by operation of law, common sense demanded that the H

A amount should be entered in the profit and loss account for the year and be treated as taxable income. In other words, the principle appears to be that if an amount is received in course of trading transaction, even though it is not taxable in the year of receipt as being of revenue character, the amount changes its character when the amount becomes the assessee's own

B money because of limitation or by any other statutory or contractual right.

When such a thing happens, common sense demands that the amount should be treated as income of the assessee.

In the present case, the money was received by the assessee in course of carrying on his business. Although it was treated as deposit and was of C capital nature at the point of time it was received, by efflux of time the money has become the assessee's own money. What remains after adjustment of the deposits has not been claimed by the customers. The claims of the customers have become barred by limitation. The assessee itself has treated the money as its own money and taken the amount to its profit and loss account. There is no explanation from the assessee why the surplus D money was taken to its profit and loss account even if it was somebody

else's money. In fact, as Atkinson, J. pointed out that what the assessee did was the common-sense way of dealing with the amounts.

Under these circumstances we dispose of the appeals as under :

E The question proposed to be raised is treated as referred under Section 256(2). The question is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.

M.K.

Appeals disposed of.