9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2002 (5) TMI 31 - HC - Income TaxBusiness Income, Sale Of Shares, Income From House Property, Annual Charge - 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for ascertaining the trading result on the sale of shares, the value of the opening stock would continue to be taken at cost as followed by the assessee from year to year? - 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in allowing the amount of Rs.3,000 as a charge on the income from property received by the assessee on partition and hence deductible under section 24(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? - we answer the questions referred to for our opinion in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of opening stock for ascertaining trading results on the sale of shares. 2. Deductibility of maintenance charges under section 24(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Valuation of Opening Stock for Ascertaining Trading Results on the Sale of Shares: The primary issue was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the opening stock should continue to be valued at cost, as followed by the assessee from year to year. The assessee had been dealing in shares and consistently showing the opening stock at cost. The Assessing Officer (AO) contended that the shares transferred from the investment account to the stock-in-trade account should be valued at the market value on the date of transfer, relying on the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Bai Shirinbai K. Kooka [1962] 46 ITR 86. The Tribunal, however, held that the consistent method of valuing shares at cost should be followed, and the Income-tax Officer's (ITO) variation was unjustified. The Tribunal cited Investment Ltd. v. CIT [1970] 77 ITR 533, emphasizing that income should be deduced from the consistent valuation method adopted by the assessee. The High Court disagreed with the Tribunal, stating that the apex court in Bai Shirinbai K. Kooka's case had clearly held that profits from the sale of shares should be the difference between the sale price and the market value at the date of conversion into stock-in-trade, not the original purchase price. The court emphasized that a wrong method of assessment cannot justify non-levy of tax if otherwise leviable. The principles of res judicata do not apply, and the conversion of opening and closing stock is relevant only when the sale takes place, as established in Groz-Beckert Saboo Ltd.'s case [1979] 116 ITR 125 (SC) and British Paints India Ltd.'s case [1991] 188 ITR 44 (SC). 2. Deductibility of Maintenance Charges under Section 24(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The second issue was whether the amount of Rs.3,000 claimed by the assessee for maintaining his mother, as stipulated in the deed of partition, should be allowed as a charge against the income from property under section 24(1)(iv) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the charge was created voluntarily by the assessee, whereas the Tribunal allowed the deduction, considering it not voluntarily created. The High Court analyzed whether the charge was created voluntarily or involuntarily. It concluded that a deed of partition is a voluntary contract between co-sharers, and no law imposes an obligation to enter such an agreement. Therefore, the charge was not created by operation of law but voluntarily by the assessee. The court referred to Central Bank Executor and Trustee Co. Ltd.'s case [1993] 203 ITR 666, which distinguished between voluntary and involuntary charges, and Murlidhar Kanodia and Sons (HUF) [1993] 204 ITR 760, which held that a voluntary mortgage charge is not deductible under section 24(1)(iv). The court disagreed with the view in Rajah Dhanrajgiriji [1985] 154 ITR 719 (AP) and Smt. Indramani Devi Singhania's case [1991] 189 ITR 124 (All), which suggested that charges created to meet genuine obligations are not voluntary. The High Court held that the Tribunal's judgment on this issue could not be upheld. Conclusion: The High Court answered both questions in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, thereby upholding the AO's method of valuation and denying the deduction for maintenance charges. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.
|
