M/S. Rajputana Textiles (Agencies) Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City

A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and J. N. Shroff, for the appellants.

K. N. Rajagopal Sastri and D. Gupta, for the res-pondent. '

1 1961. April 12. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Kapur J. KAPUR, J.-This is an appeal against the judgment

and order of the High Court of Bombay in a reference under s. 8(5) of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 194 7 (Act XXX of 194 7), hereinafter termed the 'Act'. The assessee company was· the applicant before the High Court arid iS' the appellant before us and the Commissioner of Income-tax, Born. '96' bay City, was the respondent in the High Court and is the respondent here also. Being a reference under Rajputana Textiles s. 8(5) of the Act, it was heard and decided by three !Agencies) Ltd. judges of the High Court. v.

The assessee company is a private limited com-Commissioner of pany w h. h was mcorpora . t e d on M ay 6 , 1943 , "th Income-tax c·

IC WI B b a paid up capital of Rs. 20 lacs. It was promoted by om ay ''Y two groups of persons who for the sake of convenience Kapur f. may be called the 'Morarka Group' and the 'Bubna Group'. The Apollo Mills Co., Ltd. of Bombay with a capital of Rs. 50 lacs divided into 25 lacs shares of Rs. 2 each, had as its Managing Agents M/s. E. D.

Sassoon & Co. Ltd., who for the sake of brevity, will be referred to in this judgment as 'the Sassoons'. They held 19,76,000 shares out of the 25 lacs. The promo-ters of the assessee company entered into an agree-ment with the Sassoons on April 27, 1943, by which the Sassoons agreed to transfer their Managing Agency in the Mill Co. for Rs. 12! lacs to the promoters of the assessee company and the whole of their holding of 19, 76,000 shares at Rs. 4-4-0 per share, i.e., for Rs. 83,98,000. These shares were to be transferred to the promoters or to the company which they were proposing to float. By clause (3) of this agreement the sale of the Managing Agency and the transfer of the shares was to be simultaneously completed and neither party could require the completion of the one without the other. On November 1, 1943, a tripartite agreement was entered into between the Sassoons as Assignors, the promoters of the company as Confirm-ing Parties and the assessee company as Assignees.

By that agreement the· Managing Agency rights were formally transferred to the assessee company so also the Share Certificates for the whole of holding of the Sassoons in the Mill Co. and the necessary blank transfer deeds were delivered. ,

Before the agreement of April 27, 1943, and during the course of negotiations with the Sassoons the pro-moters of the assessee company entered into an arrangement with some share brokers for the sale of a large portion of the total holding of 19, 76,000 shares

920 SUPREME. COURT REPORTS [1962]

'96' of the Mill Co. The price of these shares varied from

Rs. 5-8-0 to Rs. 5-13-0. In all l0,00,000 shares out of Rajputana the total holding of the Mill Co. were sold to these Te>tites (Agencies) Ltd. brokers and they in turn sold these block of shares in

v. smaller lots to a number of purchasers. Some shares Commissioner of were sold later; 1,20,000 shares were transferred to 13

Income-tax, nominees of the Morarka Group at cost price. As a Bombay City result of sale of all these 13,74,000 shares the assessee Kapur J. company received a sum of Rs. 16,52,600 as excess

over the purchase price. The remaining shares the assessee company retained. The assessee company submitted that the profits of the entire holding of the shares had not been worked out and had therefore not been transferred to the profit and loss account.

The assessee company was taxed by the Income-tax Officer but the sum of Rs. 16,52,600 which was the excess of the sale price over the purchase price of 13,74,000 shares was held not to be profit and there-fore not taxable. When the Act came into force the case of the assessee company was referred to the In-vestigation Commission by the Central Government and the Investigation Commission made its report on November 9, 1949, in Case No. 406A. By this report the Commission directed that appropriate assessment be made under the Indian Income tax Act for the assessment year 1945-46 and the Excess Profits Tax Act for the corresponding chargeable accounting period.

At the instance of the assessee company the Com-missioner of Income-tax, Bombay City, by his order dated May 1, 1951, referred the following question to the High Court:

"Whether on the facts found by the Commission the sum of Rs. 16,52,600 being the excess price rea-lised by the sale of 13, 7 4,000 shares of the Mill Company, was 'profit' and as such taxable or whe-ther it was either of the nature of a ca,pital appre-ciation or a casual and non-recurring receipt and as such exempt from taxation under Section 4(3)(vii) of the Income-tax Act."

The High Court reformulated the question as follows:- /

"Whether there were materials to jnsti fy the finding of the Tribunal that the trans:1ctiun of pur-chase and sale of 13, 74,000 shares was an adventure Rajputa11a in the nature of trade?" TexJiltJs (Agen'i") Ltd. and answered the question so formulated in the v. affirmative and therefore against the assessee com-Commissioner of pany. In its application for reference under s. 8(5) of I nconitJ-fax. the Act the assessee company wanted S<>me other Bombay City questions also to be referred but the Investigation T<apu,. J. Commission only referred the question which has been set out above. The assessee company therefore took out a Notice of Motion on November 8, 1952, which was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that either the questions which were sought to be raised did not arise out of the finding of the Commission or they were included in the question which had been referred and answered by the High Court. Although the High Court did not so hold, the Notice of Motion was barred by time, being filed after more than six months allowed under s. 66{2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. Against this judgment and order of the High Court the assessee compa,ny has come in appeal to this Court by special leave.

This appeal is brought against the judgment of the High Court answering the question referred and there-fore in its advisory jurisdiction. The jurisdiction which this Court exercises in appeal is of the same character and therefore any question which was not referred to the High Court cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage. Consequently the constitutional question in regard to discrimination nuder Art. 14 of the Constitution which is now sought to be raised cannot be raised. The main question which wnuld then survive for decision is the nature of transaction relating to the sale of 13 lacs odd shan's and whether or not the sale was an aclventure in the nature of trade and therefore the amount of Rs. 16,52,600 the excess of sale price over the purchas~ price of 'he share is a Revenue Receipt and thl'refore taxable pro-fits or is it a Capital Receipt and therefore not liable to tax. The Investigation Commission by their order dated May 1, 1949, found;-

922 SUPREME COURT REPOltTS [1962] 196r (1) that a distinction should be made between the

6 lacs shares which the assessee company intended to Rajputana and did reta.in and the 13 lacs odd shares which it Textiles intended to and did sell; the former was kept in order (Agencies) Ltd.

v. to enable the a~sessee company to make their Manag-Commissioner of ing Agency rights effective.

Income-tax. (2) During the negotiations between the Sassoons Bombay City and the promoters of the assessee company, the pro-Kapur J. rooters of the assessee company had started negotia-

tions with certain brokers for the transfer of 13 lacs odd shares soon after the arrangement between the Sassoons and the assessee company was completed.

(3) From the very beginning the intention of the promoters of the assessee company was to sell all the 13 lacs odd shares and in pursuance thereof they were sold.

(4) The paid up capital of the assessee company was Rs. 20 lacs only and according to the agreement they had to take the whole block of shares belonging to the Sassoons and pay for the shares as well as for the Managing Agency both of which were separately valued in the agreement. It was therefore necessary and it was intended to sell the 13 lacs odd shares in .order to pay off the Sassoons both for the Managing Agency and the shares. The inference drawn from this by the Commission was that a distinction had to be drawn between the 6 lacs shares which the assessee company intended to retain and did in fact retain and the 13 lacs odd shares which they intend-ed to sell and did sell.

(5) that the intention to sell which the assessee company entertained from the very outset was a com. plete answer to the argument that the acquisition was in the nature of an investment. In giving its finding the Commission said:- " Aggregating the 12! lakhs paid for the Manag-ing Agency right and the full price of 6 lakhs and odd shares at Rs. 4-4-0 per share, the capital invest-ment must amount to 12! lakhs and 25! lakhs, i.e., 38 lacs and odd. By deducting therefrom the pro-fits of Rs. 16,52,600, the Company showed a capital investment of Rs. 21,54,200 and with the addition

of a few sundry items, it was brought up to r96r Rs. 22,06,408 (see para 7 supra)."

Rajputana From this finding the inference drawn by the Com-Textiles mission was that the sale of 13 lacs odd shares was an (Agencies} Ltd. adventure in the nature of trade. V,

The High Court reformulated the question which Commissionef of has already been quoted and it was contended that Income-tax, Bombay City the High Court was in error in narrowing down the scope of the question referred by the Commission. It Kapur ]. is not necessary to adjudicate upon this argument because in our opinion taking the question as referred to be a proper question arising out of the report of the Investigation Commission the answer to the first part thereof would still be in the affirmative. In consider-ing the question whether the transaction is or is not an adventure in the nature of trade we have to take into consideration the intention of the assessee keep-ing in view the "legal requirements which are associa-ted with the concept of trade or business''. The inference from the facts found by the Investigation Commission, i.e., whether the assessee company's transaction in purchasing and selling 13 lacs odd shares -is or is not an adventure in the nature of trade is a mixed question of law and fact and the legal effect of the facts found by the Investigation Tribunal is a question of law. See M/s. Ramnarain Sons (Pr.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay (1).

It was argued on behalf of the assessee comp:1I1y that:

(1) that the dominant idea with which the whole transaction was entered into was to obtain the Manag-ing Agency of the Apollo Mills;

(2) that the assessee company was forced to buy the whole block of shares, i.e., 19,76,000 shares by the Sassoons because they were not prepared to part with the Managing Agency without the whole of their stock in the mill company;

(3) that as the assessee company did not not have sufficient amount of money, their capital being only Rs. 20 lacs, it was to implement the tripartite agree-ment dated November 1, 1943, that the sale was made; and

1961 (4) that the Memorandum of Association of the

assessee company showed that it was a holding com-Rajputana pany an d d ea l" mg m · s h ares was not one o f its · TeXWes (Agencie;) Ltd. objects.

v. The agreement shows that the Sassoons had sepa-Commissioner of rately evaluated the Managing Agency and the shares

Income-ta•, held in the Apollo Mills Co. As the Investigation Bombay City C omm1ss10n · • h as ,oun c d , 1 "t was never th . e m · t ont10n · o f Kapnr ;. the assessee company to retain the whole block of

shares. Before the agreement was entered into they had made arrangement for the sa.]e of the bulk of shares which were to be transferred by the Sassoons and therefore division of the shares into two sets w1ts made by the promoters of the assessee company and the assessee company themselves and was not the result of anything done by the Investigation Commis-sion.

In support of his contention that the amount of Rs. 16,52,600 was in the nature of Capital Receipt, reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in M/s. Ramnarain's case (1) but there are certain features and details which distinguish that case from the pre-sent case. It was held in that case that the question had to be decided in the light of the intention of the assessee and the assessee in that case had purchased the shares of the Dawn Mills not as a business tran-saction. That was clear from the fact that the asses-see had purchased the shares at Rs. 2,321-8-0 per share and the market price was only Rs. 1,610, and the pur-pose of acquisition of such a large block of shares at a price exceeding the market price by a million rupees was the acquisition of the Managing Agency, which yielded the inference that the intention of purchasing the shares in that case was not to acquire them as a part of the trade of the assessee in shares but for obtaining the Managing Agency of the Mills. There was no separate price paid for the Managing Agency and the shares purchased and the Managing Agency acquired were both assets of a capital nature and the shares did not constitute stock-in-trade of a trading venture. In the present case the facts as shown were entirely different.

Counsel for the assessee company also relied on r96r Kishan Prasad & Co. Ltd. v. Co]m· issioner of Income-In that case th Managing Director Rajputana tax, Punjab('). Textiles of the company which was formed for the purpose of (Agencies) Ltd. carrying on general business and trade of commercial v. undertaking and dealing in bills, hnndis and other Commi,,ioner 01 secur1t1es, · · entere d m · t o an agreemen t w1 'th a sugar Income-tax c·t·

b h' h h b ' h B b syn d. 1catc y w ic t e company was to e given t e om ay 'y Managing Agency of a Mill of the sugar syndicate Hapur J. when such mill was erected in lieu of the company subscribing shares worth 3 lacs, and undertaking to sell shares worth 2 lacs. It was further provided that if the mill was not erected the assessee company was to be paid a commission on the amount invested by them. The Managing Director· died and the assessee company sold the shares and thus received Rs. 2 lacs more than they had expended. The question was whether Rs. 2 lacs were receipts from business and not a mere appreciation in capital. It was held that that amount was not a result of an adventure in the nature of trade but was merely the result of an invest-ment. It was found as a fact that the object of the company was merely to obtain the Managing Agency of the mill which would have been an asset of an enduring nature bringing profits but there was from the very inception no intention on the part of the company to resell the shares either at profit or other-wise. It appears that it was not contested that the conclusion to be drawn from those facts was that the I investment in the purchase of shares iu the circum-

stances of the case of a capital nature and profits arising therefrom were an accretion to the capital. In that case the court was trying to find out the inten-tion of the assessee (the company) and taking all the circumstances into consideration it came to the con-clusion that it was a case not of profits arising out of an adventure in the nature of trade but the inten-tion of the assessee company was to invest its monies and therefore the excess arising out of sale of the shares was an accretion to the capital. That case must be taken to have been decided on its special facts as

926 SUPREME COURT REPOHTS [1962]

r96r indeed was the decision in M/s. Ramnarain Son's

case C (1 ). l ,, ·: · Rajputana ounse 1or the assessee company referred to other

Textaes (Agencies) Ltd. cases: Tata Hydro-Electric Agencies, Bombay v. The

v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Presidency & Commissioner of Aden ('); Commissioner of Income-tax, Central and

Income-tax, United Provinces, Lucknow v. Messrs. Motira1n Nand-Bombay City ram ('),Jones v. Leeming (4) and Commissioner of In-Kapu' 1. land Revenue v. Reinhold ('). It is unnecessary to re-

view these cases in any detail because they are clearly distinguishable in material respects and were decided on their own special facts. In Tata Hydro-Electric Agencies' case (') the question for decision was w he-ther 25% of the commission earned which was paid to the two financiers was expenditure deductible under s. 10(2)(ix) and it was held that it was not because the obligation to make the payment was in consideration of acquiring the Managing Agency and the right to conduct business and not for the purpose of producing profits in the conduct of business. Simi-larly in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Messrs. Moti-ram Nandram (')the expenditure was for securing the agency which was to carry on business. Sir George Rankin said at p. 81:

"The question in such a case as the present must be "what is the object of the expenditure?" and it must be answered from the standpoint of the asses-sees at the time they made it-that is, when they were embarking upon the business of organizing agents for the company." I Jones v. Leeming(') was a case of an isolated transac-tion. The finding was that it was not in the nature of trade. Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Rein-hold(') was decided on its own facts. Another case decided by this court upon which counsel for the appellant relied was Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v. Com-missioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, Calcutta (6) but that case was also decided on its own facts and it was held that there was no clear evidence in support of (r) (1961J 2 S.C.R. 904, qo8. (2) (1937) L.R. 64 I.A. 215. (Jl (1939) L.R. 67 I.A. 7I. (4) [1930] A.C. 415.

(5) (1953) 34 T.C. 389. (6) [1959] Supp. 2 S C,R. 846, the inference of the Appellate Tribunal that the land was purchased with the sole intention of selling it later at a profit. Rajputana

The English and Scottish cases on which the appel-Textiles (Agencies) Ltd. lant relied were considered by the House of Lords in v. Edwards v. Bairstow (1). In that case the assessees who Co1nmissioner of were the respondents embarked on a joint venture to Income-tax, purchase and complete a spinning plant agreeing bet-Bombay City ween themselves not to hold it but to make a quick l<apur ] . resale. With that object in view they approached and there were diverse negotiations and the whole plant wa"s sold in about two years' time at a profit of about £ 18,000 and for that purpose incurred commission for help in effecting sales, for insurance and other ex-penses. The General Commissioners found that it was not an adventure in the nature of trade to justify an assessment to income-tax under Case I of Schedule D to the Income-tax Act, 1918. It was held that the facts led inevitably, to the conclusion that the transac-tion was an adventure in the nature of trade and that the Commissioner's inference to the contrary should be set aside.

Counsel for the respondent next relied on a J udg-ment of this Court in G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co.

v. The Commissioner of Income-tax(') in which it was held that the presence of all the relevant factors may help the Court to draw the inference that the transac-tion is in the nature of trade but it is not a matter of counting the number of facts and circumstances for and against. What is important is to consider the distinctive character and it is the total effect of all the relevant factors that determines the character of the transaction. All these cases are illustrative. As was said by Gajendragadkar, J., in the above mention-ed case the totality of circumstances of a case and the pros and cons have to be considered and inference drawn from those facts Whether a particular transac-tion was in the nature of trade or was merely an investment and the resulting excess from the transac-tion was therefore profit which was taxable or was merely an accretion to the capital. In the instant case

the profits from the transaction that consisted of buy-ing the Managing Agency of the Mill Company and the R7,~;i~:;a block of shares held by the Sassoons were in our view (Agencfrs) Ltd. the profits of an adventure in the nature of trade.

v. The two groups, Morarka and Bubnas, put Rs. 20 lacs Commissioner of into the assessee company which was floated for the

Income-ta~, acquisition of the Managing Agency and shares of the Bombay C•ty Mill Company which were beyond the holding capa-

city of the assessee company. That company never Kapur ]. intended to hold the whole block of shares. It or its

promoters before even entering into the agreement of purchase and during the course of negotiations for the purchase had entered into arrangements with diffe-rent brokers for the sale of shares or at least of a bulk of those shares which were subsequently sold at a profit and but for that sale the transaction could not have been completed by the assessee company. The purchase of shares was not with the intention of hold-ing them, the intention of the assessee was just the contrary and by the sale at a profit of the shares ac-tually sold the assessee company expected to and did finance the completion of the transaction and thus was enabled to secure the Managing Agency and keep 6 lacs shares. This inescapably was a transaction of a commercial nature. It had all the attributes of an adventure in the nature of trade. The contention that dealing in buying and selling of shares was not one of its objects is without substance. The Investigatio; Commission found that dealing in shares was within the objects of the assessee company and this is one circumstance in the totality of the circumstances which must be considered, though by itself it is not determinative of the question. All the circumstances lead to the inference which was rightly drawn by the Investigation Commission and by the High Court. The answer to the first part of the question referred by the Investigation Commission must therefore be in the affirmative.

It was contended that the question should not have been reframed and we have therefore proceeded to answer the question as framed by the Investigation Commission. In our opinion the question even as framed must be answered in the affirmative.

The Notice of Motion to raise other questions in 1961 the High Court was rightly dismissed. Apart from the fact that the Notice of Motion was barred by time Rajputana Textiles and there was no application for condonation of delay, (Agencies) Lid. the questions which were sought to be raised were v. rightly held either to be covered by the question ans-Com,nissioner af wered or they did not arise at all. The constitutio-lncome~tax, nal question under Art. 14 of the Constitution cannot Bombay City be raised in these proceedings because as we have said Kapur J. above this Court is exercising its advisory jurisdiction and its power is confined to the questions which arise in an appeal.

This appeal must therefore be dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed.

GOBALD MOTOR SERVICE LTD. & ANOTHER z96r

v.

R. M. K. VELUSW AMI OTHERS April 14. & (K. SuBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL and

J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.)

Fatal Accidents-Negligent act of driver of bus-Acting in the course of employment-Liability of owner-Damages-Principles of ascertainment-Pecuniary loss and loss of expectation of life-If same person could claim under both heads-Fatal Accidents Act, r855 (IJ of r855), SS. I, 2.

A bus run by the appellant met with an accident as a result of which R died. R's dependants and heirs e.g. the father, widow and sons. brought a suit for compensation under s. I of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, for loss of pecuniary benefit sus-tained by them personally and under s. 2 thereof for the loss sustained by the estate on account of the death of R. The High Court found that the bus was driven at an excessive speed and there was negligence on the part of the driver and that the appellants were liable for the same. On the question of damages, it confirmed the amount of compensation of Rs. 25,000 under s. 1 of the Act for the loss of pecuniary advantage and of Rs. 6,ooo under s. 2 of the Act for loss of expectation of life. The ques-tions for consideration were (r) whether the accident wa> due

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 282 of 1955.

Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 20, 1953, of the Bombay High. Court in Income-tax Reference No. 31 of 1951.