1961 (3) TMI 7 - SC - Income Tax

Whether the sums of ₹ 2,12,080 and ₹ 2,31,563 paid by the Government to the assessee in 1945 and 1946 respectively (exclusive of the sums paid specifically for building repairs) were revenue receipts in the hands of the assessee comprising any element of income ? Whether the whole of the said sums less the expenses incurred by the assessee in tending the tea bushes constituted agricultural income in his hands exempt from tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ? Held that - Though the payment in question was not made to fill a hole in the capital of the assessee, as in the Glenboig case, nor was it made to fill a hole in the profits of a going business as in the Shamsher Printing Press case, it cannot be treated as partaking the character of profits because business not having been done, no question of profits taxable under section 10 arose. The Privy Council described such a payment as a solatium. It is not necessary to give it a name ; it is sufficient to say that it was not profit of a business. Once it is held that this was not profit at all, it is clear that rules 23 and 24 of the Indian Income-tax Rules could not apply, and there was no question of apportioning the amount, as laid down in rule 24. The whole of the amount received by the assessee was not assessable. Appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sums paid by the Government to the assessee were revenue receipts in the hands of the assessee comprising any element of income.
2. If so, whether the whole of the said sums less the expenses incurred by the assessee in tending the tea bushes constituted agricultural income in his hands exempt from tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the sums paid by the Government to the assessee were revenue receipts in the hands of the assessee comprising any element of income:

The appellants, a Hindu undivided family, owned a tea garden called the Sewpur Tea Estate in Assam. The military authorities requisitioned all factory buildings on the estate under rule 79 of the Defence of India Rules, which halted the manufacture of tea while the appellants continued to tend the tea garden. The military authorities paid compensation for the requisition, which included sums for repairs. The primary question was whether these compensatory sums were received on revenue or capital account.

The Income-tax Officers for the assessment years 1945-1946 and 1946-1947 treated the compensation differently. For 1945-1946, the Officer applied rule 24 of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922, bringing 40% of the balance to tax. For 1946-1947, the Officer treated the entire amount as taxable income after excluding sums for repairs. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld these assessments, but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was divided. The Judicial Member viewed the receipts as revenue from "use and occupation" of the premises, while the Accountant Member considered them taxable after deducting admissible expenses.

The High Court of Assam, upon reference, answered both questions against the appellants, leading to the present appeal.

The Supreme Court examined whether the compensation received was a revenue receipt. It was emphasized that the business of the appellants as tea-growers and manufacturers had come to a stop. The compensation was measured by the likely profits but was not derived from any business activity. The Court referred to various English and Indian precedents, noting that the nature of the payment, not the method or measure, determines its character as capital or revenue.

The Court concluded that the compensation was not for loss or destruction of a capital asset but for the stoppage of business. The entire structure of the business was affected, and no business was done in the two years. The payment was not an adjustment of a contract but compensation for compulsory requisition, which did not involve buying tea as raw material or finished product. Thus, the compensation could not be treated as profits of a business.

2. If so, whether the whole of the said sums less the expenses incurred by the assessee in tending the tea bushes constituted agricultural income in his hands exempt from tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:

Since the Court concluded that the compensation was not a revenue receipt, the second question did not arise. The compensation was not treated as income from business, and thus, the application of rules 23 and 24 of the Indian Income-tax Rules was irrelevant. The entire amount received was not assessable as business income.

The Court also considered whether the payment could be treated as income from property under section 9 of the Income-tax Act. However, this aspect was not the Department's case, and the Tribunal did not express this as its decision. Therefore, no opinion was expressed on this matter.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the sums paid by the Government were not revenue receipts comprising any element of income, and thus, the second question did not arise. The appeal was allowed with costs in favor of the appellants.

← Previous Next →