1988 (9) TMI 13 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of the Income-tax Act regarding business carried out through an agency, determination of income accrual from a tea estate purchase, effective date of a sale deed, entitlement to depreciation under section 32 of the Act.

Analysis:
The case involved a question referred to the High Court under the Income-tax Act regarding whether the assessee was carrying on business through the agency of the vendor and if the income from the Dekhari Tea Estate accrued to the assessee during the relevant assessment year. The assessee, a tea estate company, purchased the estate from another company in England, with the sale deed executed on April 16, 1970. The dispute centered around the effective date of the sale, with the Revenue authorities determining it to be January 1, 1969. The Tribunal held that the vendor was the agent of the assessee, making the assessee accountable for profits from January 1, 1969, and entitled to deductions under the Act.

The High Court referred to the Indian Registration Act, particularly section 47, which states that a registered document operates as if no registration was required, from the date it would have commenced to operate. The court noted that the controversy was whether the sale was effective from January 1, 1969, or April 16, 1970. If effective from January 1, 1969, the vendor acted as the assessee's agent, entitling the assessee to depreciation under section 32 of the Act. The court cited precedents allowing reframing of questions to address the real controversy, emphasizing that the question of depreciation was relevant in the case.

The court highlighted the importance of interpreting the consequences of treating an imaginary state of affairs as real, citing a legal principle that necessitates imagining the inevitable corollaries of a putative state of affairs. While the effective date of the sale deed was not disputed, the entitlement to depreciation under section 32 was argued and upheld in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the court answered the reframed question in the affirmative, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, with no costs awarded.