Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras v. V. Mr. P. Firm, Muar

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS V. MR. P. FJRM, MUAR October 26, 1964 (K. SUBBA RAo, J. C. SHAH AND S. M. SIKRI JJ.) Income Tax-Debtor and Creditor (Occupation Period) Ordinance-(Ma/aya Ord. No. XLII of 1948)-,-Scope of-Liability to tax on principle-of eslPppel. The Japanese currency introduced into Malaya! during the J apaneso occupation began to depreciate after January 1963, so that debts paid off and received in that currency resulted in loss to the creditors. The Govern-ment of India, by a notification issued in 1947, propounded a scheme to give relief to Indian natioo.als carrying on business in Malaya, and the Central Board of Revenue issued further instructions on the scheme. One of the instructions was that if any creditors opted to accept the scheme, a D recovery subsequently made by them, with respect to the debt due to them was to be taken as their income. In 1948, the Debtor and Creditor (Occupation Period) Ordinance No. XLII of 1948, of Malaya was passed by the Malayan Legislature. Under that Ordinance, payments made in Japanese currency were to be valued and scaled down in accordance with its Schedule, i.o that a payment in Japanese currency would be a valid discharge of a debt only to the extent of such revaluation. A creditor could enforce his debt to the extent not discharged and the debtor was E under an obligation to discharge it to that extent. On the questions as to ( i) whether amounts, recovered by creditors who bad accepted the scheme, from their debtors, in terms of the Ordinance, were liable to income-tax; and (ii) whether the debtors could claim the payments made-by them as deductions, the High ColUt held, (i) that the assessees who had received payments would not be liable to tax in respect of amounts they had received towards principal, but they would be so liable in respect of moneys which they had received towards interest; and (ii) th;tt those F assessees who had made payments towards the debts, would be entitled to deduct from their income, and claim exemption from tax only such amounts as they had paid on account of interest, but they would not 'be entitled' to deduct any payment made on account of principal. The High Court also gave directions that open payments should be . appropriated accord-ing to the law of appropriation of payments. The Commissioner and a. debtor-assessee appealed to the Supreme Court. G HELD : The appeals should be dismissed. (i) The creditor-assessees were not precluded on the principle of "approbate and reprobate" from pleading that the income they derived· subsequently, by realisation of the revived debts, was not taxable income. The doctrine was only a· species of estor:iel and "l'nnot operate against the statute. If -a particular income is not taxable under the Income-tax Act, it cannot be taxed on the basis of estoppel or any other equitable H doctrine. [822 f-H] (ii) Under the Ordinance, the discharged debts became enfo.ceable to the extent ef the balance of the amount due after the scaling down of th<> payment.., and the contention of the Revenue that the State provided for compensation for the loss incurred by the creditor-assessees could not be accepted. (825 B-E] (iii) The Incon!e-taxf Officer could only impose iincome tax on the income recovered by the assesse .. thereafter towards their debu if such income was taxable under the provisions of the Act. So too in regard to the payments made by the assessees towards such debts, they could claim relief by way of deduction only if such deductioOJ were permissible under the Act. (825 F-G) CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 55, 8811 and 889 of 1962 and 518 to 520, 722, 724, 725, 727 to 729 & 732 to 735 of 1963. Appeals from the judgment dated August 19, 1958, of the Madras High Court in Referred Case No. 52, R. C. No. 90, 43 and 82, 33, 58 to 60, 64 and 65 of 1955 and 97, 98, 102, 112, 113 and 115 of 1956, respectively. 817 C. K. Daphtary, Allorney-General, S. V. Guple, Solicitor-General, Gopal Singh, R. H. Dhebar and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant (in C. A. No. 55 of 1962). C. K. Daphtary, Allorney-General, S. V. Gupte, Solicitor- General, N. D. Karkhanis, R. H. Dhebar and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant (in C. As. NC'S. 888-889 of 1962 and 722, 724, 725, 728 to 729 and 732 to 735 of 1963) and for the respondentli (in C. As. Nos. 415 of 1962, 518 to 520 of 1963). R. Ganapathy Iyer, for the appellantJ> (in C. A. Nos. 5 l 8 to 520 of 1963) and for the respondents (in C. As. Nos. 55 of 1962, 888 to 889 of 1962 and 729, 732 and 735 of 1963). K. Srinivasan and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the respondent (in C.A. Nos. 733 to 734 of 1963). K. R. ChiSldhurl, for the respondent (in C.A. No. 724 of G 1963 ). A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, K. Parasaran, K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and K. R. Chaudhuri, for the respondent (in C.A. No. 722 of 1963). S. Swaminathan and M. S. Narasimhan, for the respondents (in C.A. Nos. 725 and 728 of 1963). A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Subba Rao J. These 16 appeals are filed against the Judg-ment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras and raise the question of the effect of the Debtor and Creditor (Occupation Period) Ordinance No. XLII of 1948 of Malaya, hereinafter B called the Ordinance, on the liability of the assessee to pay income-tax in respect of pre-occupation debts revived thereunder. During the last World War Japan occupied Malaya. During the period of their occupancy i.e., from February 1942 to Sep-e tember 1945, they introduced their own currency i!n dollars. During that period both the currencies were in vogue though there fas a progressive depreciation of Japanese currency in ita relation to Malayan currency. On September 5, 1945, the British Government re-occupied Malaya and introduced the Malayan currency as legal tender in place of Japanese currency. D The Indian nationals, who were carrying on business in Malaya during the period of Japanese occupation, were hit adversely ,and suffered losses. The Government of India came to their · rescue and by Notification dated August 14, 1947, they propounded a scheme to give them relief by allowing them to set off the !ossca E incurred by them d11oring the 5 years relevant to the assessment years 1942-43 to 1946-4 7 against the profits of the assessment years 1942-43 and 1941-42. We shall consider the scheme in some detllil at a later· stage of the judgment. On December 16, 1948, the Malayan Legislature ·passed the Ordinance declaring that payments made in Japanese currency by debtors to their F creditors In respect of debts incurred prior to and during the Japanese occupation were to be valued and scaled down in accordance with the schedule appended to the Ordinance. We shall deal with Ordinance in some detail at the appropriate place but the broad effect of the Ordinance was that though a debt had G been discharged fully by paying the amount due in Japanese cur-rency, the debt was revived in proportion to the depreciation of Japanese currency in relation to the Malayan currency as laid down by the schedule. The creditor's right to recover the debt to the said extent and the liability of the debtor to pay the same revived. As the question raised is one of law and does not depend UpQJI Jie peculiar facts of each case, we think it is enough if we state briefly the facts of two cases, one illustrating the claim of A an asse•see against the imposition of income-tax !n respect of the income he realized by the revival of the debts and the other illustrating that of an assessee to an allowance on the ground that he paid the scaled down debts over again. 817 820 The respondent in Civil Appeal No. 722 to 735 of 1963 is a firm carrying on business of money-lending in Kampar in Fed-crat~ Malaya State. It applied for relief under the special scheme. It incurred lo~s for the aforesaid four years of Rs. 1,33, I 25. For the years 1941-42 and 1942-43 it had a profit of Rs. 53,010 and Rs. 35,753 respectively. The said profits were set off against the losses and the taxes paid by it for the years 1941-42 and 1942-43 were refunded to it. After the Ordinance was passed, in terms of that Ordinance the respondent recovered 6,437 dollars during the previous year ending April 12, 1952. corresponding tc the assessment year 1952-53. Civl! Appeals Nos. 518 to 520 of 1963 deal with the converse case. The appellant therein is a Hindu undivided family carry-ing on, inter a/ia, a money-lending business in its own vil!asam ic Kania Kubbu Bharu and Parit Buntar in the Federated Malaya State>. In the course of its business it had taken moneys ~ deposits from various persons before April 12, 1942. During th~ period of occupation it discharged its liability to various cre-dito:s but after the publication of the Ordinance it had to pay again to creditors 6,214.58 dollars in the previous year ending April 12, 1950; 28.586 dollars for the previous year ending April 12, 1951; and 11,547 dollars for the previou~ year ending April 12, 1952. The aforesaid amounts were claimed by the appellant as deductions respectively for the assessment years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53. The following tabular form at a glance gives the claims of the asscs~ccs as creditors or debtors, as the case may be : The Income-tax Officel'5 held that during the period of A Japanese Qeeupation the debts were discharged and that the receipt of additional amounts under the Ordinance was in fact a%cssablc to tax. They also held that in the case of an asscssee who was a debtor no deduction was permissible on the ground that the amounts paid represented only repayment of capital and not business expenditure. On appeal the Appellate Assistant Commis-B sioner held that the receipts by the assessee in respect of the revived debts were only realization of the original amounts lent and, there-fore, could not be regarded as income. In the case of the claim for deduction, be agreed with the view of the Income-tax Officer. On further appeal to the Tribunal, in the case of receipts it held C that the asscssee by claiming benefits under the sch=e and in including all its cash and Bank balances in the Malayan business as part of the losses incurred therein in effect indirectly wrote off the debts due to them and, therefore, the recoveries under the Ordin-ance were only a subsequent realization of the written off bad debts and, therefore, assessable to income-tax. In those appeals D relating to deductions, the Tribunal confirmed the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. an.~wered the questiom referred to it as The High Court follows: 820 821 822 ( I) Where an assessee has received repayments, be will not be liable to tax in respect of amounts he has received as or towards principal, but he will be so liable in respect of moneys which he has received as or towards interest. Where only part of the debt has been recovo-red, the assessee will be at liberty, subject to the law relating to appropriation of payments, to appropriate the money he has received either towards principal or interest. The assessment in respect of such receipts will proceed on this basis, that is to say, if the payment has been lawfully appropriated towards interest, assessee will be liable to pay tax thereon. But if he has lawfully appropriated it towards principal, he will not be liable to pay tax on it. (2) Where an assessee has made payments, he will be entitled to deduct them from his income and claim exemption from tax'for only such amounts as he has paid on account of interest. He will not be entitled to deduct any payments on account of principal. A The Tribunal was directed to review the assessment in the light of the said directions. The· main reason given by the High Court for giving the said answers was that the result of the Ordin-ance was to revive the old debts and the question of the exigibility of the said income to tax can only be decided on the provisions of the Income-tax Act qnd not by the terms of the scheme of the B Ordinance. Hence the appeals'. The learned· Solicitor-General, appearing for the Revenue, raised before us the following three points: ( 1) Sub-s. ( 2) of s. 4 oi the Ordinance on which reliance was placed by the High Court applies only to pre-occupation capital debts and the debts with C which the appeals are concerned are not pre-occupation capital debts and, therefore, they are not revived thereunder. (2) The assessees having taken benefit under the scheme propounded by the Government of India which contained a condition that if any recoveries subsequently made would be taken as income, they are . now precluded from contending that the amounts realized towards D the revived debts are not taxable on the principle of approbate and reprobate. And (3) on a reasonable construction of the relevant .sections of the Ordinance it should be held that there was no revival of the debts but only that the State had provided for com-~nsation for the losses incurred during the occupation period by E the assessees. The first question had not been raised at any stage of the proceedings before the Tribunai and the High Court. Nor does it find a place in the statement of case. · We cannot, therefore, allow the learned Counsel to raise it for the first time before us. F Nor has the second question been raised in the High Court in the form in which it is presented before us. The scheme pro-pounded by the. Government of India, inter a/ia, contains the following provisions : ( i) No assessee was under any obligation to accept the scheme. If he desired to opt for ·the scheme he was G required to give option with one month after he was informed of the scheme. (ii) An assesse.e was permitted to include in his expenses certain items which would be inadmissible under the Indian Income-tax Act. (iii) The losses suffered by an assessee during the five years relevant to the assessment years 1942-43 to 1946-47 were to be aggregated. (iv) An assessee was pem1itted to carry the aggre- gated loss backward and set it off against his profits for the assessment year 1942-43. (v) Any loss still unabsorbed could be carried back- ward to the year 1941-42. (vi) Any excess tax found to have been paid after recomputing the income of an assessee by' carrying his loss backward could be refunded to him. (vii) The loss could not be carried forward. 822 823