1981 (9) TMI 66 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the Tribunal in canceling the order made under section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Justification of the Tribunal in Canceling the Order Made Under Section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

The assessment year in question is 1968-69, with the relevant previous year ending on December 31, 1967. The assessee was assessed on a total income of Rs. 1,14,980, leaving a distributable income of Rs. 38,981 after statutory deductions. As an investment company, it was required to declare 90% of the distributable income as dividends, amounting to Rs. 35,082, to avoid the application of section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the company declared only Rs. 5,012 as dividends, resulting in a shortfall of Rs. 30,070. The assessee argued that a larger dividend could not be declared due to the pressing need to repay a loan to M/s. Binani Investment Co. (P.) Ltd. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) rejected this explanation and imposed an additional super-tax of Rs. 16,990.

The ITO found the company's arguments unconvincing, noting that the company had sufficient receipts and had allocated Rs. 70,000 for income tax and Rs. 45,000 towards the general reserve. The ITO observed that the general reserve was not intended for loan repayment, as the cash position was only Rs. 12,156, and the loan repayment to M/s. Binani Investment Co. (P.) Ltd. was only Rs. 35,000.

The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC), who agreed that the ITO should consider the directors' perspective but found that a larger dividend was not unreasonable. The AAC noted that M/s. Binani Investment Co. (P.) Ltd. was an associate concern with common directors and shareholders, undermining the argument of pressing loan repayment. The AAC also highlighted that the appellant company was amalgamated with M/s. Binani Investment Co. in 1970, further weakening the loan repayment argument.

The Tribunal, upon further appeal, considered the commercial profit and cash resources available for dividend declaration. The Tribunal noted that the company's only asset was property valued at over Rs. 10 lakhs, with cash resources of Rs. 12,155 on December 31, 1967, and Rs. 28,186 on April 30, 1968. The Tribunal concluded that declaring a higher dividend was not feasible given the available resources and the need to repay the loan. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions of the Calcutta High Court and allowed the appeal, setting aside the ITO's order.

The Revenue argued that the Tribunal failed to take an overall view, particularly regarding the transfer of Rs. 45,000 to the general reserve and the common management of the two companies. The Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Gangadhar Banerjee & Co. (P.) Ltd. was cited, emphasizing that the ITO should act as a prudent businessman, considering the overall financial position and business considerations.

The High Court found that the genuineness of the loan was not disputed, and the repayment was a prudent business decision. The subsequent amalgamation of the companies did not affect the assessment year in question. The transfer to the general reserve was not challenged as improper, and the ITO had accepted the distributable surplus after considering this transfer.

In conclusion, the High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, answering the referred question in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.