1982 (2) TMI 209 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the assessee-company is a "company in which the public are substantially interested" under section 2(18) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Definition and Interpretation of "Company in which the Public are Substantially Interested":

The primary issue in this case is whether the assessee-company qualifies as a "company in which the public are substantially interested" as defined under section 2(18) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The definition includes several conditions, including that shares carrying not less than fifty percent of the voting power must be unconditionally and beneficially held by the public, and the affairs of the company or the shares carrying more than fifty percent of its total voting power must not be controlled or held by five or fewer persons.

2. Shareholding Pattern and Control:

The share capital of the assessee-company consists of 6,000 shares, with 4,895 shares (approximately 81%) held by three public charitable trusts. The company argued that since these shares are held by public charitable trusts, they should be considered as held by the public. However, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) rejected this contention, stating that more than 99% of the voting power is held by three persons, thus falling under the mischief of section 2(18)(b)(iii).

3. Tribunal's Findings and Alternative Argument:

The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal initially declined the argument that shares held by public charitable trusts should be considered as held by the public. However, it accepted an alternative argument based on section 187B of the Companies Act, 1956, which states that the voting power exercisable by the public trustee should be regarded as held by the public. The Tribunal concluded that since the public trustee is a nominee of the Government, the shares held by the trusts should be considered as held by the public, making the assessee-company a company in which the public are substantially interested.

4. Revenue's Argument:

The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of section 187B of the Companies Act. It argued that the shares continued to be held by the trustees of the public trusts and that the trustees, although members of the public, did not hold the shares for their own benefit. Hence, the shares could not be said to be beneficially held by the public as required by section 2(18) of the Income-tax Act.

5. Assessee's Argument:

The assessee-company argued that the shares held by the trustees should be considered as held by the public because the beneficiaries of the trusts are members of the public. The company contended that the provisions of section 2(18) should be reasonably construed to include shares held by public charitable trusts as beneficially held by the public.

6. Court's Analysis and Conclusion:

The High Court analyzed the definition of "company in which the public are substantially interested" and the conditions that need to be satisfied under section 2(18)(b). It referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in Raghuvanshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT, CIT v. Jubilee Mills Ltd., and CIT v. East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd., which emphasized that shares must be unconditionally and beneficially held by the public and not controlled by a block of shareholders acting in unison.

The Court held that the shares held by the trustees of the public charitable trusts could not be considered as held by the public because the trustees did not hold the shares for their own benefit. The Court also rejected the Tribunal's reasoning based on section 187B of the Companies Act, stating that the public trustee's voting power does not equate to the shares being held by the public.

The Court concluded that the assessee-company did not satisfy the conditions under section 2(18)(b) as the shares were not beneficially held by the public and were controlled by a block of trustees. Therefore, the assessee-company could not be considered a company in which the public are substantially interested.

Judgment:

The question referred to the Court was answered in the negative and in favor of the Revenue. The assessee-company was not considered a company in which the public are substantially interested under section 2(18) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.