Anglo-French Textile Co. Ltd v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras.

EhagwatiJ. the following two questions for reference :- " ( 1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate. Tribunal was right in holding that section 42(1) and (3) of the Income-tax Act has no application to income accruing or arising to the assessee company in British India or to income receiv-ed by it in British India during the previous year ?" "(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in hold-ing that the entire income of the assessee company during the accounting year ended 31st December, 1941, was assessable under section 4(1) of the Income-tax Act, and that no portion of such income was entitled to be exempted under section 42(3) of the Act ?"

The Appellate Tribunal however referred the follow-ing questions to the High Court :- " ( 1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, section 42(1) and (3) of the Act alone and not section 4 of the Act have application to the income accruing or arising to the assessee company in British India and to the income attributable to the sale proceeds received by it in British India during the previous year ?"

"(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the entire profits and gains arising to the assessee company in British India should be taken into account for the purpose of applying the test laid down under section 4-A ( c) (b) or only that part of the pro-fits which should be determined after the application of section 42(3) of the Act as reasonably be attribut-able to that part of the operations carried on in British India ?" and "'(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act contained in section 4(1) with the sub-sections 1953 and section 4-A(c), (b) are not ultra vires in so far as Angla.Frtnclt they seek to assess foreign income of the company T 1xtil1 Co. /..Jd. registered outside British India ?" v. Cormni.uionet" of The third question was concluded by the decision lncom1-tax, of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of MadrAS. Wallace Bros. & Co. Ltd.(') and was therefore not argued BM.gwati]. before the High Court and the High Court answered it by stating that the provisions of sectio.ri 4 ( 1) and section 4-A ( c) (b) of the Act were not ultra vires the Indian Legislature. The question No. (1) was further amended by agreement between the learned counsel for the revenue authority and the assessee and it was reframed as under :

" ( 1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case section 42 (1) and (3) of the Act alone and not section 4 of the Act have application to the income accruing or arising by reason of sales in British India of manufactured goods where the manufacturing pro-cess took place outside British India ?"

The question (2) was retained in the form in which it had been referred by the Appellate Tribunal. Both these questions were answered against the assessee by the High Court. The assessee obtained the necessary certificate from the High Court for leave to appeal to this court and hence this appeal.

It may be observed that in reply to the notice under sections 22(2) and 38 of the Act for the asess-ment year 1942-43 the agents of the assessee had on the 1st June, 1943, submitted a return under protest and had claimed that the income shown in the return should be apportioned under section 42(3) of the Act as between the operations carried on in British India and operations carried on outside British India. They had further declared that the company was non-resid-ent in British India during .the previous year for which the return was made. In the statement enclosed therewith the total world income for the year ended 31st December, 1941, had been shown at Rs. 10,23,907.

Profit at 10 per cent. on British India sales which

aggregated to Rs. 57,07,431 was shown at Rs. 5,70,743 1953

and after deduction of the proportionate· expenses Anglo-French relating to sales in British India and sundry charges Textilt Co. Ud.

v. was put down at the net figure of Rs. 4,58,026 which Commissioner of was shown as the British Indian income. It was thus

lncomt-lax, contended that the income arising in British India in Madras

the year of account did not exceed its income arising Bhagwati]. without British India and that therefore the assessee

was non-resident in British India. This calculation of profits at the rate of 10 per cent. on British Indian sales did not make any allocation between manufactu-ring profits and merchanting profits and all the profits arising out of British Indian sales were shown in one lump sum. The Income-tax Officer took it as settled law that the profits arose in the country in which the sales took place and as the bulk. of the sales had taken place in British India the bulk of the profits accrued or arose in British India. He held that the provisions of section 42(3) would apply only where the profits arose outside British India but which by virtue of section 42(1) were deemed to accrue or arise in British India, and that it did not apply where the profits actually arose in British India by the sale of goods in British India. He therefore held that the entire profits on sales made in British India actually arose in British India and were liable to tax under section 4 ( 1) ( c). On a calculation of the figures he came to the conclusion that the income of the assessee arising in British India in the accounting year exceeded its income arising without British India and that the assessee was resident in British India under sec-tion 4-A( c). The assessee was also held ordinarily resident in British India under section 4-B(c) and he assessed the company accordingly on that basis. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also proceeded on that basis and confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer. He was however further of the opinion that the entire profits were received where the sale pro-ceeds were received and the assessee was thereforn liable to tax under section 4(1) (a) also. This conclu-sion was arrived at by him relying upon two decisions of their Lordships of the Privy Council : (1) Pondicherry Railway Company v. Commissioner of 1953 Income-tax, Madras(') and Commissioner of Income-tax. An:lo-French Madras v. Diwan Bahadur Mathias('), in the first of T1-xtilt Co. Ltd. v. 'which at page 369 Lord Macmillan observed as follows : CommiJsioner of "Their Lordships accordingly are of the opinion that [111;orrlt-t11X the income derived by the Pondicherry Railway Com-Madrs. pany from the payment made to them by the South Bhagwati]. Indian Railway Company is on the facts stated received in British India within the meaning of the Act by the Agent .of the Pondicherry Railway Company there on their behalf" ...... "It is unnecessary to go on to consider whether the business is carried on in British India, which is the form which question ( c) takes, for it is enough if the profits of a business carried on by the assessee are received in British India and the place where the business is carried on is not material." The Appellate Tribunal adverted to the fact that the whole income of the company so far as 1942-43 is concerned was received in British India and so far as 1943-44 is concerned a major part ot 1t m .this way was received in British India. but did not base its decision on this aspect of the case. It held that the scope of section 42(3) was circumscribed by confinement to those cases where profits were deemed to accrue or arise under section 42 alone and there was no warrant for extending the principle of apportion-ment to other cases where the profits and gains were made taxable under other sections of the Act. It also held that section 42 dealt with "deemed" income whereas section 4-A( c) dealt with income that arose in British India. Therefore, it could not be said that for the purpose of section 4-A(c) a proportionate "deemed" income should be taken as income that arose in British India. When the application for reference was made to the Appellate Tribunal the Commissioner of Income-tax in the question ( l) which he suggested included within its ambit this aspect of the income having been received by the assessee in British India during the previous year. But when the Appellate Tribunal reframed the question (1) it merely

(1\ [1931] 5 l.T.C. 363.

(2) [1939] 7 l.T.R. 48.

1953 confined it to income accruing and arising to the asses- .A.n~lo-Fr1ftl:h see in British India and to the income attributable to Textile Co. Ltd. the sale proceeds received by it in British India during

v. the previous year. The question (1) as finally framed Conunissiontr of

lncomt-lllJt, by the High Court adverted to the income accruing or Ma&as. arising by reason of sales in British India on manu-Bh•za1141i] factured goods where manufacturing process took

place outside British India and the aspect of the in-come having been received by the assessee in British India was absolutely ignored.

When the questions were originally referred to the High Court the position in law as then understood was that profits arose in the country in which the sales took place. This position was however negatived, particularly in the case of manufacturing businesses, in a decision of this court in commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co .• Bombay(').

After hearing at considerable length the arguments urged before us on behalf of the assessee as well as the Income-tax authorities we feel that in view of that decision the questions framed by the Tribunal and the High Court do not bring out the real point in contro-versy between .the parties and it is agreed that the following two questions truly represent and bring out the matter on which the parties are at iisue. We therefore resettle the questions originally frnmed aml reframe them as below :

(I) Whether in view of the finding of fact in this case that the entire profits were received in India and the company is liable to tax under section 4(1) (a) of the Act, the provisions of section 42(1) have any relevancy ?

(2) Can the income received in India be said to arise in India within the meaning of section 4-A(c) (b) of the Act ? If not, should only those profits determined· under section 42(3) as attributable to the operations carried out in India be taken into account for applying the test laid down in section 4-A(c) (b) ?

The case is remanded to the High Court with the 1953 direction that it should give its opinion on these two Anglo-Frtfttk questions and submit the case to this court within Textile •• Co. Ltd three months. C&mmi.uioner of lncBm1-twt, S. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant. Macbas. Porus A. Mehta, for the respondent. Bhagwati J. 1953. December 8. BHAGWATI J.-By our judg-ment dated the 22nd December, 1952, we refram.ed the questions as below :

( l) Whether in view of the finding of fact, in this case that the entire profits were received in India and the company is liable t,o tax under section 4(1) (a) of the Act, the provisions of section 42 ( 1) have any relevancy ;

(2) Can the income received in India be said to arise in India within the meaning of section 4-A ( c) (b) of the Act ? If not, should only those profits determined under section 42 (3) as attributable to the operations carried out in India be taken into account for applying the test laid down in section 4A (c) (b), and remanded the case to the High Court with the direction that it should give its opinion on these two questions. The High Court has accordingly consider-ed these two questions which were referred to it for opinion and has answered the question No. l in· the negative and against the assessee and question No. 2 in the manner following, i.e., the income received in British India cannot be said to wholly arise in India within the meaning of section 4-A ( c) (b) of the Act and that there should be allocation of the income between the various profit producing operations of the business of · the company in the light of the principle contained in the judgments in Ahmedbhai Umarbhai's case(') and in Anglo-French Textile Com-pany v. Income-tax Commissioner(') relating to the same assessee.

When the matter came up for further arguments before us on this opinion of the High Court, Shri S. N. Mukherjee, the learned counsel for the appellant

(1) 1'1. cO] t8 !.T.R 472. (2) ,:.l.R. 1953 S.C. 105.

1953 did not contest the correctness of the answer to Anglo-French question No. 1 in view of the decision of this court in Textile Co. Ltd. Turner Morrison & Co., Ltd v. Commissioner of lncome-

•• tax, West Bengal('). It may be noted that even before Commissioner of the High Court the learned counsel appearing 'for both

J11come~lax, the parties agreed that the matter was concluded by Madras.

this decision against the assessee and question No. 1 Bhagwali]. was answered accordingly by the High Court.

In regard to the question No. 2 however Shri Porus A. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent, contended before us that the matter was not conclud-ed by the judgment of the majority in Commis-sioner o,f Income-tax, Bombay v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co., Bombay(') and that the High Court was wrong in the answer which it gave to this question. He contended that the decision in the case of Commis-sioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co., Bombay('), turned on the statutory provisions of the Excess Profits Tax Act read with section 42 (3) of the Indian Income-tax Act which was expressly incorporated therein by virtue of section 21 of the Act and not on any general principles of apportion-ment of income, profits or gains enunciated therein. He took us in extenso over the portions of the majority judgments and tried to demonstrate that the decision there was based purely on the applicability of section 42(3) of the Indiaq Income-tax Act, but for the appli-cability of which, according to his submission, there was no room for the apportionment of the income, profits or gains of the business in the manner con-tended by the appellant. We do not accept this contention of the respondent. Section 4A ( c) (b) is concerned with the income arising in the taxable terri-tories in a particular year exceeding the income arising without the taxable territories in that year and the very words of the section are capable of being construed as also contemplating a state of affairs where there may have to be a division or apportionment between the income arising in the taxable territories and the income arising without the taxable territories in the particular year. The whole of the argument 1953 urged before. us on behalf of the respondent was Angl0-French aimed at establishing that the scheme of the Indian Textile Co. Lt<l. Income-tax Act was not to tax the source of income y, Commissioner of but the ·income, profits or gains from whatever source Inamtt·lax, derived which were received or were deemed to be Madras. received in the taxable territories or which accrued or Bbagr.uati j. arose or were deemed to accrue or arise in the taxable territories during the particular year and that it was immaterial whether the income, profits or gains were derived from business operations carried on in the taxable territories or without the taxable territories.

This argument was possible when the decisions which held that income, profits or gains arose or accrued at the places where the sales took place were good law, because then there was no question of apportionment of. income, profits or gains arising from the business operations carried on in the taxable territories and income, profits or gains arising from the business operations carried on without the taxable territories.

The moment however it was held, as it was done in Com-missioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co., Bombay('), that though profits may not be realised until a manufactured article was sold profits were not wholly made by the act of sale and did not necessarily accrue at the place of sale and to the extent profits were attributable to the manufacturing Dperations profits accrued at the place where business operations were carried on, these decisions went by the board.

The question whether a particular part of the income, profits or gains arose or accrued within the taxable terri, tories or without the taxable territories would have to be decided having regard to the general principles as to where the income, profits or gains could be said to arise or accrue. Section 42 of the Indian Income-tax Act has no relevance to the determination of this question because it is mainly concerned with income which is deemed to have arisen or accrued and not with income which actually arises o~ accrues within the taxable territories. Section 42 (3) also is a part of the scheme which is enacted in section 42 and cannot hel1»

1953 in the determination of the question before us. As

a matter of fact the use of the words "under section .Anglo-Frtnch 42(3)" used in the question No. 2 as reframed by us T1xtil1 Co. Ltd.

v, was not appropriate and the only question which Commissio11er of should have been sent to the High Court was "if not,

Income-tax,

Madras. should only those profits determined as attributable Bhagwati ]. to the operations carried out in India be taken into

account for applying the test laid down in section 4A (c) (b)."

If, therefore, section 42(3) has nothing to do with the determination of the income arising in the taxable territories as distinguished from the income arising without the taxable territories as understood in section 4A ( c) (b) of the Act what we have got to consider is whether there is anything in the Act which prevents the application of the general principle of apportion-ment of income, profits or gains between those which are derived from business operations carried on within the taxable territories and those which are derived from business operations carried on without the taxable terri-tories. The contention which was advanced by Shri Porus A. Mehta on behalf of the respondents in this behalf, viz., that the word "arise" was the only word used in section 4A ( c) (b) and the word "accrue" did not find any place therein, that there was a distinc-tion l\etween the conception of arising and the concep-tion of accrual and that the apportionment of the income was appropriate only in cases where the income arose and was inappropriate in cases where the income accrued, was sufficiently repelled in the judgment in . Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co., Bombay('), where it was observed:- "Whether the words 'derive' and 'produce' are or are not synonymous with the words 'accrue' or 'arise', it can be said without hesitation that the words 'accrue' or 'arise' though not defined in the Act are certainly synonymous and are used in the sense of 'bringing in as a natural result'. Strictly speaking, the word "accrue' is not synonymous with 'arise', the former .connoting idea of growth or accumulation and the latter of the growth or accumulation with a tangible 1953 shape so as to be receivable. There is a distinction in ~~nglo-French •. the dictionary meaning of these words, but throughout Textile Co. ltd the Act they seem to denote the same idea or ideas Commi1sioner of very similar and the difference only lies in this that Income lax, one is more appropriate when applied to a particular Madras. case. In the case of a composite business, i.e., in the Blr.agwati .7· case of a person who is carrying on a number of busi-nesses, it is always difficult to decide as to the place of the accrual of profits and their apportionment inter se.

For instance, .where a person carries on manufacture, sale, export and import, it is not possible to say that the place where the profits accrue to him is the place of sale. The profits received relate firstly to his business as a manufacture, secondly to his trading operations, and thirdly to his business of import and export. Profits or loss has to be apportioned between these businesses in a businesslike manner and accord-ing to well-established principles of accountancy. In such cases it will be doing no violence to the meaning of the words 'accrue' or 'arise' if the profits attribu-table to the manufacturing business are said to arise or accrue at the place where the manufacture is being done and the profits which arise by reason of the sale are said to arise at the place where the sales are made and the profits in respect of the import and export business are said to arise at the place where the busi-ness is conducted. This apportionment of profits between a number of businesses which are carried on by the same person at different places determines also the place of the accrual of profits."

The phraseology of section 42(3) of the Act also repels the contention in so far as the profits and gains of the business which are referred to therein and which are capable of apportionment as therein mentioned are deemed to accrue or arise in the taxable territories thus using the words "accrue'' and "arise" as synony-mous with each other.

The above passage is also sufficient in our opm1on to establish that the apportionment of income, profits or gains between th:i,;e ~rising from business operations Anglo-French carried on in the taxable territories and those arising Textile Co. /..Jd. from business operations carried on without the taxable

v.

Commissioner of territories is based not on the applicability of section

Income-tax, 42(3) of the Act but on general principles of apportion-

Madras

ment of income, profits or gains. That was really the Bhatw.Ui ]. ratio of the judgment of the majority in Commis-

sioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & ·Co., Bombay('), and any attempt to distinguish that case from the present one by having resort to the statutory provisions of the Excess Profits Tax Act is really futile. We are accordingly of the opinion that the answer given by the High Court to the question No. 2 also was correct.

The appeal before us will accordingly be allowed and the answers to the questions Nos. 1 and 2 reframed by us will be as under :- Question No. 1-In the nagative ; and Question No. 2-The income received in British India cannot be said to wholly arise in India within the meaning of section 4A ( c) (b) of the Act and that there should be allocation of the income between the various business operations of the assessee company demarcating the income arising in the taxable terri-tories in the particular year from the income arising without the taxable territories in that year for the pur-poses of section 4A ( c) (b) of the Act.

In so far as the appellant has failed in one part of the case and succeeded in another part we think that the proper order for cost should be . that each party bears and pays his own costs of this appeal including the costs of the remand before the High Court.

Appeal allowed. Agent for the appellant: P. K. Mukherjee.

Agent for the respondent : G. H. Rajadhyakslta.