Messrs. Associated Clothiers Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Calcutta

bbl Ut eet (vii) (2) 0 #51922 hi Fit agai ZitLaresSA VoltAsJieecoPeSe Loker iS ui L Fs Gore wbBielheck be tol AL ter Zt Mido10 ALi?hi heAlagyIUbia shad ha Lofbodeoid Akttell Sor ty ne Flhety i:3SAT OVO LI PaCSAiiedlbolttlGutbseLotoBenighurr[519 F517 O-H|VOM US _30%336.1bi 34 —1(1927). Ko At, 95,9148 Jnner tadsable eA ot -4965e7969 “UbiMss: eb ls AKeely ALTARL Ue tt Mai Lepe tla. vtec pb seby Vleet Cbkk DELL AABS1939-*30 AhleLA efi1952 G21 LAag tl PEM LES,Beilfap WPL PG EL L011 81913NL bs be Fhe tL‘id Bei Ee OnisSed12,30,000/- en L eeUt ekphen LotoAbi?Ewe rd Lt, 4b °L23,291/10/5 ewk bitin slri lepigsieal abi, kLrid Be[Hi tellsFL lib ue Yue 44456,05,601/6/-162 KetelgfsalkeSPE Be SouborK(butts L nbd FvLB oUtUse arf Lesalar oh LSPCIegiegeleeEE2,24,673 dASenetitbaitLis 1952 QWeASe eb ely AbleLbUtevi zt db $ Ai AusSes,97,258/- ot Nibwiltrr/,[Wh][ U=Ustte][a]£957,014AbelEL Mow i sebtse Ll2,24,673- evetdelittdnd 1953631 SSBL?bik Gh£53 -1952U 2%VLG.Sete pet?S(vid(ad10 Arb1922 hi Activetosith Gib KL YO-L Us eilbated bute,herb LPL Isintbeeebee iLSezthlkeoe S148 tialZA AA et-b erbllye GL elOILELSE PI, HEULLAt BL NN ureU=(4837Hibbert tcerset old Brutal Peterive sigPe te wlalch LieSBE te mek PIPLealegggs PL ae 2 Si fle weit PSH PKL ce Nahtgsf WL LS rcsssns”"ehh[bf]4TelratyWEE of etl orb el bie«ble sbenigk!RD ekLLBrece:li?Ile vl eRIKUSNS Usbele LeieSe Buitass 1 ditas Le nk ke eo ebb.shetui OL OKEGromMSILot(S1h2994(vid(2)10 PeobeneArbice Sigeg 2udVite ioluL cliMuied6Aulrigre Lbhe Gs ett HWEUrl Litl LutLinsClee salSLABtoF 4KFutterwlPUASL take UEKILIbLulstreEt hee MouuldlL bukuAnil elaindeg LsMee LW re UtelwfordPL e ewe G lendISL[fez] Section: CONCLUSION MESSRS. ASSOCIATED CLOTlllERS LID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CALCUTTA September 23, 1966 (J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.] Indian lncome·ta:c Act, 1922 (II of 1922), s. 10(2)(vii)-Sale o/ assets by one company to another--Circumstances in lvhich sale can b~ treated as "in substance to se/f'-App/icabi/ity o/ s. 10(2) (vii) to such transaction. The appellant a private limited company, was originally registered as "Mis. Phelps & Company Ltd." but on March 21, 1952 .. by an order under s. 11 ( 4) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, its name was changed to "Messrs Associated Clothiers Ltd." On the same day a company styled "Messrs. Phelps & Co. Ltd." was incorporated. By a written agreement, also of the same date, the appellant company agreed to transfer its assets to Messrs Phelps & Co. Ltd. Consideration for the transfer consisted, apart from cash, of allotment of certain shares of Messrs Phelps & Co. Ltd, to the appellant and the taking over of the latter's liabilities by the former. Among the assets transferred under the agreement was a building describ-ed in the second schedule to the ai:reement. The original cost of this building was Rs. 97,252/- and its wntten value was Rs. 57,0111-, but in the balance sheet for the account year ending March 31. 1953 as well as in the aforesaid agreement its value was shown as Rs. 2,24,573/-. In Income-tax: proceedings relating to the account year 1952~53 the Income[4 ]tax Officer brought to tax under s. 10(2)(vii) of the Indian Income-tu Act, 1922, the difference between the original cost and the written down value of the building on the date of transfer. Before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal it was contended by the appellant that the sale of the assets of the appellant company was 'in substance to s~lr and therefore s. 10(2) (vii) was in30pl1cable. The Tribunal decided, in favour of the company but the High Court held against it. The company thereupon came 10 this Court in ;i:->'.)eal by certificate. HELD : The sale '"a" hy one company to another, it was not a case in which persons carrying on busincs-s had floated a private limited company and had attempted to readjust their business positions. The sale was for a stated consideration \\•hich had not been shown to be notional and since the cons:dcration was in excess of the original cost of the building the difference bct\\'CCn the original cost and the written do\\'ll value was profit within the meaning of s. 10(2)(vii) second proviso. [517 0-H; 519 Fl Sir Ho111i 1'.fehta's Executors' case, 28 I.T.R. 928 and Rogers & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City II 34 l.T.R. 336, distingukhed. Chittoor Motor Transport Co. (P) Ltd . . v. Income-tax Officer, Chittoor, 59 l.T.R. 238, relied on. Bank of Chettinad Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, 8 I.T.R. 522., Maharajadhiraj Sir Kamesliu·ar Singh v. Commissioner of lncome-ta.r, Bihar and Orissa, 48 l.T.R. 483 and Doughty v. Conunissioner of Ta:ccs, (1927] A.C. 327, referred to. Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 5 1963 of the Calcutta High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 3 of 1958. · S. S. Shukla, for the appellant. S. T. Desai, A. N. Kripal and R. N. Sachthey, for the res-B pondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. M/s. Phelps & Company Ltd. was registered as a private limited company on September 30, 1939 to carry on the business of "Clothiers and Tailors". On March 21, 1952 under c an order made under s. 11(4) of the Irn:lian Companies Act, 1913, the name of the Company was altered to Messrs Associated Clothiers Ltd. On the sa,me day a company styled "Messrs. Phelps & Co. Ltd." was incorporated. By a written agreement .also of the same date the appellant Company agreed to transfer its assets and liabilities to Messrs. Phelps & Co. Ltd. in con-sideration of allotment of shares of the value of Rs. 12,30,000/-D of Messrs. Phelps & Co. Ltd. and Rs. 23,291/10/5 payable in cash, and Messrs. Phelps & Co. Ltd. taking over liabilities of the ap-pellant Company of tii,r aggregate amount of Rs. 6,05,601/-/6. Under the terms of the agreement the appellant Company pur-ported to transfer seven items of property described in the Sche-dules annexed to the deed : one of the properties so agreed to be E transferred was described in the second schedule-a building at Connaught Place, New Delhi, valued at Rs. 2,24,673/-. No deed of conveyance was executed in pursuance of the agreement. It is, however, common ground that on July 1, 1952, Messrs. Phelps & Co. Ltd. took over possession of the properties agreed to be sold. The original cost of the building described in the second sche-dule was Rs. 97,258/- and the written down value of the building after deducting depreciation allowed from time to time in the re-cords of the Income-tax Officer was Rs. 57,011/-. In the balance sheet of the appellant Company dated March 31, 1953 the building was valued at Rs. 2,24,673/- the price for which it was agreed to be sold. In proceedings for assessment for the account year 1952-53 the Income-tax Officer, Companies, District IV, Calcutta, brought to tax the difference between the original cost and the written down value of the building on the date of the transfer as deemed profit of the appellant Company under the second proviso to s. 10(2)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Before the Appellate Tribunal it was contended that the sale of assets to the appellant Company was "in substance to self" and on that account no profit had resulted to the Company and the amount sought to be brought to tax was not liable to be includecl in the Company's profit. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Commis-.3ioner of Income-tax, Bombay City v. Sir Homi Mehta's Executors(!) upheld that contention. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta the following question was referred to the High Court of Calcutta:- "Whether on the facts and in the circums~ces of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of rupees forty thousand two hundred and forty seven could not be deemed to be profits of the assessee company under second proviso to s. I 0(2)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act ?" The High Court answered the question in the negative. Against \he order passed by the High Court, with certificate under s. 66A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, this appeal is preferred. The High Court was of the view that the principle of the deci-sions in Sir Homi Mehta's Executor's case(') and in Rogers & Co. v. Commissoner of Income-tax, Bombay City Il(2), did not apply to the facts of the present case, since at all material times there.were in existence two corporations which were distinct and the transfer by one corporation of its assets to another cannot be deemed to be· a transfer to self; that the transaction by which the appellant Company transferred its assets to Messrs. Phelps & Co. Ltd. was a transaction of sale, and the doctrine of "lifting the veil of corporate personality" had application only to a limited class of cases, and tLe case of the appellants could not be brought within that class; and since the two companies "continued to ex.ist side by side" for many years after the appellant Company had transferred its assets to Messrs Phelps & Co. Ltd., two different Companies whiCh carried on business simultaneously could not be regarded as one entity. In this appeal with certificate, the appellant Company contends that the High Court gravely erred in r.ecording its opinion on the question submitted, relying on evidence which was never placed before the Income-tax Officer or· the Tribunal. Counsel urged tllat the observations made by the High Court that Messrs. Phelps & Co. Ltd. and the appellant Company "continued to exist side by side as two separate limited Companies" and carried on business simultaneously for more than ten years is borne out by no evidence on the record. This criticism has force. The High Court in a reference under s. 66(1) or (2) is bound to proceed on the findings recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal: it has no power to admit on record additional evidence, as the High Court did, and to consider that additional evidence which was not placed before the Tribunal. We must therefore proceed on the view (2) 34 l.T.R. 336. that· there is no evidence before the Tribunal and no finding of the Tribunal that after transferring its assets the appellant Com-pany carried on business. Counsel for the Company also submitted that the Tribunal was in error in observing that the appellant Company had B transferred all its assets and liabilities to the new Company. But in the statement of the case which is based upon the judgment of the Tribunal, there is a clear recital "that all the assets and liabilities of the appellant Company were transferred to Messrs. Phelps & Co. Ltd. Counsel asked us to ignore that statement in view of the recital made in the preamble clause of the agreement dated March 29, 1952 in which it was.recited that Messrs. Phelps c & Co. were "desirous of acquiring a part of the undertaking and property of the VenQ.or Company." But there is nothing in the recitals which indicates that any assets were retained by the appel-lant Company. The Tribunal in deciding the appeal before it observed: "Associated Clothiers Ltd. were owners of a business "Associated Clothiers Ltd. were owners of a business D having assets and liabilities. By sale to Phelps & Co. Ltd. they got the entire ownership by way of shares and the same assets and liabilities remained in the hands of Phelps & Co. Ltd." This Court must accept the statement made by the Tribunal in E the statement of the case, especially when no objection was raised thereto before the Tribunal or before the High Court on behalf of the appellant Company at any time. On the question whether in determining liability of an assessee to pay income-tax it is open to the court to ignore the corporate per-sonality of a Company and to fix upon the ownership of the business F as decisive, there has been some difference of opinion. In Sir Homi Mehta's Executors' case(t) the ·assessee and his sons had formed a private limited company and transferred to that company shares in several joint stock companies which the assessee held jointly with his sons at the market value of the shares at that time. The de-partmental authorities levied income-taic on the difference between G the market price and the cost price of the shares. The High Court of Bombay held that the so-called sale of the shares to the Company was not a business activity entered into with the object of earning profit; that it was not really a sale but a procedure adopt~d for re-adjustment of their position as holders of the shares; and that the assessee did not make any profit or gain in a commercial sense by transferring the shares to the Company and therefore the differ-H ence between the market price and cost price of the shares was not exigible to tax as profit of the business. In Rogers & Co.'s case([1]) the partners of a firm carrying on the business of manufacturing aerated waters formed themselves into a private limited company, the shares allotted to each of them in the company being in the same proportions as the shares they held in the firm. The assets of the firm were transferred to the company for a price exceeding the written down value, and the difference between the original cost of the assets and the written down value was brought to tax under s.10(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act. The High Court held that the transfer of the assets of the firm to the Company was merely a readjustment made by the members to enable them to carry on their business as a Company rather than as a firm and no profit in a commercial sense was made thereby, and therefore the transfer of the assets of the firm to the Company w~s not a sale and the provisions of the second proviso to s. IO (2) (vii) did not apply. Chagla, C.J., in delivering the judgment in Sir Homi Mehta's Executors' case(2) observed at p. 932; "Whatever legal or technical form a transaction may take, the Court must try and determine what the real trans-action was and not the form which the transaction took." Again the learned Chief Justice in Rogers & Company's case(I) observed that in all transactions which tome up for consideration in a taxing statute the Court has to look not at the legal form which the transaction has, but to the real nature of the transaction, Counsel for the Revenue contends that in ignoring the legal form and relying upon "the substance of the transaction" the High Court of Bombay has erred. He relies in support of his submission upon the following observations in the judgment of the Judicial Com-mittee in Bank of Chettinad Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras(l) at p. 526 :- "The Commissioner of Income-tax in his reference stated that "in substance these loans r~prcsent money lent by the Pudukottai Bank to the Kanadukathan Bank but the transactions have been unnecessarily complicated by resorting to a series of entries which are as superfluous as they are confusing." Their Lordships think it necessary once more to pro-test against the suggestion that in revenue cases "the sub-stance of the matter" may be regarded as distinguished from the strict legal position." But the decision of the Court in Sir Homi Mehta's ·Executors' casc(2) was not founded only upon the ground that the real trans-action" was different from what it purported to be. The Court (I) 34 LT.R. 336. (2) 28 I.T.R. 928. (3) 8 L T.R. 522.