9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in excluding the sums of Rs. 75,000 and Rs. 50,000 from the total income of the assessee for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67, respectively. 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding the assessee to be a company in which the public were substantially interested within the meaning of section 108 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Exclusion of Sums from Total Income: The primary issue was whether the sums of Rs. 75,000 and Rs. 50,000 received by the assessee during the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67, respectively, should be included in the total income for tax purposes. The assessee argued that since the sums were received after the factory had ceased operations and were kept in a suspense account due to disputes, they should not be taxable in those years. The Tribunal found that the company was following a cash system of accountancy and had ceased business operations in 1962. It relied on the Supreme Court decision in N. A. Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row [1966] 61 ITR 428 (SC) to conclude that the sums received were not chargeable as income. However, the High Court noted the significant changes in the 1961 Income-tax Act, particularly sections 14 and 56, which classify all income under specific heads and make income not chargeable under heads A to E taxable under "Income from other sources." Thus, the High Court held that the sums received should be treated as income from "other sources" and are taxable, reversing the Tribunal's decision. 2. Public Interest in the Company: The second issue was whether the assessee company was one in which the public were substantially interested, despite a moratorium on share transfers imposed by the High Court during liquidation. The Tribunal held that the company was indeed one in which the public were substantially interested. The High Court agreed, stating that the moratorium on share transfers did not change the fundamental nature of the company as a public entity. The High Court cited the Supreme Court decision in Shree Krishna Agency Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 372, which established that restrictions on share transfers do not alter the public's substantial interest in the company. Consequently, the High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision on this issue. Conclusion: 1. The Tribunal was not justified in excluding the sums of Rs. 75,000 and Rs. 50,000 from the total income of the assessee for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67, respectively. This question is answered in favor of the Revenue. 2. The Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was a company in which the public were substantially interested. This question is answered in favor of the assessee. No order as to costs was made due to the company's liquidation status.
|
