1987 (2) TMI 526 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the business of running a lodging house qualifies as an "industrial undertaking" under Section 54D of the Income-tax Act.
2. Whether the assessee is entitled to tax exemption on capital gains used for constructing a lodging house.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the business of running a lodging house qualifies as an "industrial undertaking" under Section 54D of the Income-tax Act:

The primary issue revolves around the interpretation of "industrial undertaking" within the meaning of Section 54D of the Income-tax Act. The facts of the case reveal that the assessee owned an ice factory, part of which was compulsorily acquired by the government. The assessee utilized the capital gains from this acquisition to construct a lodging house and claimed tax exemption under Section 54D, arguing that the lodging house constitutes an "industrial undertaking."

The Tribunal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner both found that a lodging house does not qualify as an "industrial undertaking." However, the High Court disagreed, stating that the term "industrial undertaking" should be understood in its popular sense, meaning any enterprise or business venture. The Court emphasized that the Income-tax Act is of general application and should be construed liberally. The Court cited the Supreme Court's interpretation of "business" as a broad term encompassing any systematic activity with a set purpose.

The Court concluded that the "running of a lodge" by the assessee can be considered an "industrial undertaking" within the meaning of Section 54D. The Court rejected the Revenue's argument that "industrial undertaking" should be limited to activities involving the manufacture or production of articles.

2. Whether the assessee is entitled to tax exemption on capital gains used for constructing a lodging house:

The Court examined whether the assessee met the requirements of Section 54D for tax exemption on capital gains. The section provides that capital gains from the compulsory acquisition of a capital asset used for an industrial undertaking can be exempt from tax if the gains are used to purchase or construct a new land or building for the purpose of shifting or re-establishing the industrial undertaking.

The Court noted that the assessee had indeed used the capital gains for constructing a lodging house. Since the Court had already determined that the lodging house qualifies as an "industrial undertaking," the assessee met the conditions for tax exemption under Section 54D.

The Court also addressed the Revenue's argument that the term "industrial undertaking" should be interpreted narrowly, based on other sections of the Income-tax Act like Sections 10A, 33B, 80M, and 80J. The Court found this argument unpersuasive, stating that these sections have specific requirements and do not limit the general meaning of "industrial undertaking" in Section 54D.

Conclusion:

The High Court concluded that the lodging house constructed by the assessee qualifies as an "industrial undertaking" under Section 54D of the Income-tax Act. Consequently, the assessee is entitled to tax exemption on the capital gains used for constructing the lodging house. The Tribunal's finding that running a lodging house does not constitute an "industrial undertaking" was deemed erroneous. The question was answered in the negative, against the Revenue, and both parties were directed to bear their respective costs.