Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iii Vs. Peirce Leslie and Co. Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Case Nos. 167 and 168 of 1977 (References Nos. 138 and 139 of 197 7)
Judge
Reported in[1984]147ITR157(Mad)
ActsIncome Tax Act 1961 - Sections 254(1); ;Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 - Sections 12
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iii
RespondentPeirce Leslie and Co. Ltd.
Appellant AdvocateJ. Jayaraman, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS.V. Subramaniam, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....the order of the income-tax officer and directed him to re-do the assessment by re-computing the capital by applying the exchange ratio of 1s.6d. to the rupee. the assessee appealed to the tribunal against the commissioner's order. at the hearing of the appeal, the assessee did not dispute the commissioner's direction to apply the exchange rate of 1s.6d. to a rupee, as the appropriate conversion rate of sterling into rupees. however it was urged before the tribunal that the rupee sterling ratio was changed half way through the relevant previous year because of the devaluation of the rupee. it was pointed out that subsequent to the devaluation of the rupee, the rupee sterling exchange rate became 21 rupees to the pound. on these facts, it was urged for the assessee that the..........loss account, the real question we have to consider is, whether inclusion of any amount under the head, "capital profit account", amounted to authorisation of a reserve fund, giving the extended meaning to the word "reserve" as explained in commr. of income tax v. century spinning and manufacturing co., ltd., and in commr. of income-tax v. vasantha mills ltd., 1957-32 itr 237: (air 1958 mad 326).a copy of the capital profits account has been marked as annexure z. with reference to the first two chargeable accounting periods the position was, that a sum of 31,646,-4-0 was included in the capital profits account prior to 31-3-1946, and that inclusion must be deemed to have been authorised both for the first chargeable accounting period and the second chargeable accounting period. we find.....
Judgment:
(1) Of the three questions referred to this court under S. 66(1) of the Act, the first two were answered against the assessee in the order of this court dated 3rd September 1958 ().

The answer to the third of the questions was reserved, and by the order dated 3rd September 1958, a further statement of the case was called for from the Tribunal, which has since been submitted.

(2) The entire claim of the assessee was allowed by the Tribunal, and even at the earlier stage the assessee did not dispute the fact that the entirety of its claim, though upheld by the Tribunal, could not be sustained. The claim in the proceedings put forward by the assessee before us was a much more limited one, the details of which were set out in the order dated 3rd September 1958. It is the correctness of that claim we have to decide on the basis of the further statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal.

(3) The first item which we have to consider is the claim of assessee, that for the first two chargeable accounting periods a sum of 27857 constituted "reserves" within the meaning of the rule, and that for the next two chargeable accounting periods the amount under this head was 9812-0-5.

(4) The relevant dates were the commencement of the respective chargeable accounting periods, 1-4-1946, 1-7-1946, 1-4-1947 and 1-7-1947. Even if we take the passing by the general body of shareholders of the profit and loss accounts submitted by the Directors as evidence of the appropriation of the various amounts to the various heads shown in the profit and loss account, the real question we have to consider is, whether inclusion of any amount under the head, "capital profit account", amounted to authorisation of a reserve fund, giving the extended meaning to the word "reserve" as explained in Commr. of Income tax v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co., Ltd., and in Commr. of Income-tax v. Vasantha Mills Ltd., 1957-32 ITR 237: (AIR 1958 Mad 326).

A copy of the capital profits account has been marked as Annexure Z. With reference to the first two chargeable accounting periods the position was, that a sum of 31,646,-4-0 was included in the capital profits account prior to 31-3-1946, and that inclusion must be deemed to have been authorised both for the first chargeable accounting period and the second chargeable accounting period. We find from Annexure Z that a portion of the profits was taken over to this head of account, what apparently in the opinion of the assessee was capital profits.

How an assessee chose to treat a particular item of profit, either as capital or as trading receipt, could not obviously conclude the question, and so mere inclusion in the head of the capital profit account with nothing more cannot, in the circumstances of this case, be proof of appropriation for any specific purpose. Specific evidence as to the nature of this particular fund shown as the capital profit account was not furnished except what appears ex facie the account. We have no other material on which to rest our conclusions. We find that while several items were credited to the account, items which apparently in the view of the assessee were capital receipts, the only out-going was by way of distribution to shareholders.

Learned counsel for the assessee conceded that what was paid out of this "capital profit account" was further dividends to the deferred shareholders. Thus on the material placed before us, the only conclusion we can come to is, that a portion of the profits of the company was taken over to the capital profit account only to be available for a deferred distribution of dividends to shareholders. If that be the real position of the capital profit account, it would only mean a portion of the profits were kept undistributed, and merely because they were included in a separate head of account they were not taken out of what was called "amorphous and undistributed profits" profits available for the further distribution. In this case distribution was deferred, and that by itself with nothing more cannot make the amount so set apart a reserve within the meaning of rule 2.

(5) Therefore, the assessee's claim that whatever was found in the capital profit account, whether that claim was based upon what was credited or upon what was retained as balance at the end of the relevant period, was a reserve within the meaning of rule 2 will have to be negatived. As we said, it only retained a portion of the undistributed profits; only it was put under a separate head in the balance sheet.

(6) Similarly the amount of 219-3-3 shown in the first two chargeable accounting periods and 30-7-4 shown in the third and the fourth accounting periods constituted only a portion of the undistributed profits. That they were shown in the profit and loss account did not make them any, the less undistributed profits; and that have been shown under a separate head of account by itself and with nothing more cannot be viewed as constituting them a reserve for future use for any specified purpose. So that portion of the claim also of the assessee will have to be negatived.

(7) That leaves only one other item for consideration. With reference to the second, third and the fourth chargeable accounting periods the assessee claimed that a sum of 19,236 constituted a reserve within the meaning of rule 2. This was shown in the balance sheet under the head "excess profits tax post-war refund suspense account", and as the balance sheet was approved by the shareholders, the appropriation to this head of account must be deemed to have been authorised. So if this head of account had been authorised before the relevant dates with reference to each of the chargeable accounting periods, and if such appropriation constituted a reserve, the assessee would be entitled to the relief of abatement for which rule 2 provided.

(8) Before going into the nature of this head of account, we have to point out that with reference to the second chargeable accounting period commencing from 1-7-1946 the position was there was no meeting of the general body prior to 1-7-1946, which means there was no authorisation by the general body, which alone was competent, before the relevant date 1-7-1946. So even if the inclusion of this amount in the suspense account is accepted as proof of constituting a reserve, the claim of the assessee with reference to the second chargeable accounting period from 1-7-1946 to 30-6-1947 will have to be negatived on the ground that prior to 1-7-1946 there was no authorisation by the general body of shareholders.

(9) There was certainly a meeting of the general body prior to 1-4-1947, and the requisite authority with reference to the third and the fourth chargeable accounting periods was there. The question that remains is, whether inclusion of this amount under this head of account can be taken as proof of constituting a reserve.

(10) The nature of the fund included under the head, "excess profits tax post-war refund suspense account", is to be gathered with reference to Ss. 39 and 40 of the Finance Act II of 1945 of the United Kingdom. As the learned counsel for the assessee pointed out, S. 40 of the Act defined with precision the use to which the refund ordered by the British Treasury could be put by the tax payer who got the refund S. 40 prohibited certain uses and ordained certain uses to which alone the amount refunded could be put. We can briefly say that Sec. 40 required the amount so refunded to be utilised for development purposes. It could not be used for instance either for the issue of shares or for the declaration of dividends.

(11) Thus the position was that whatever was given as a refund of excess profits tax in the United Kingdom was available only for use for a limited purpose, and the assessee was under a statutory liability to utilise this amount only for those purposes. Therefore, when the amount was refunded, it was shown under a separate head of account as excess profits tax post-war refund suspense account. It meant the amount was held in reserve, but in suspense, to be utilised for the statutory purposes as directed by S. 40 of the English Finance Act of 1945. Therefore the very inclusion of this amount under this head of account would be proof of an appropriation for a specified purpose, the purpose specified being statutory, but nonetheless a purpose specified. When that purpose specified was further authorised by the shareholders, the fact that they were under a statutory liability to do so did not make the authority of the shareholders any-theless effective. Thus the requirements were satisfied to constitute the fund a reserve within the meaning of rule 2, and for the assessee to claim abatement with reference to that amount.

(12) In our opinion, the assessee is entitled to claim a relief of abatement with reference to this sum of 19236 with reference to the third and the fourth chargeable accounting periods, that is, 1-4-1947 to 30-6-1947 and 1-7-1947 to 30-6-1948. The rest of the claim which the Tribunal allowed will have to stand disallowed, and the other sums will have to be brought to tax.

(13) In form our answer to question No. 3 is, the credit balance in the capital profits account, profit and loss account and excess profits tax post-war refund suspense account did not constitute reserves within the meaning of rule 2(1), except to this extent, that with reference to the third and the fourth chargeable accounting periods alone the sum of 19236, which was included in the post-war refund suspense account, did constitute a reserve within the meaning of rule 2(1).

(14) As the assessee has substantially failed in this reference, he will pay the costs of the department. Counsel's fee Rs. 250.

(15) Reference answered accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //