1971 (5) TMI 25 - HC - Income Tax

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the surplus amounting to Rs. 1,01,854 arising from the sale of the fireclay rights was taxable under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 purchase and sale of fireclay rights were purchase and sale of the assessee and were incidental to the purchase and sale of coal mines. Both the coal mine and the fireclay rights were purchased for the purpose of resale therefore, Our answer to the question referred to us, therefore, is in the affirmative and in favour of the department

Summary

Issues:
1. Taxability of surplus amount from the sale of fireclay rights under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis:

The case involved a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, concerning the assessment year 1945-46. The assessee had paid a substantial amount to purchase a coal mine and fireclay rights, subsequently selling them to a newly incorporated company. The Tribunal inferred that the purchases were made solely for the purpose of resale to the new company, indicating clear intentions for regale at a profit. The Tribunal linked the purchase of fireclay rights to the coal mine purchase, considering them incidental, leading to the conclusion that the transactions were for profit-making purposes.

The primary question referred to the court was whether the surplus amount from the sale of fireclay rights was taxable under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee's counsel argued that the Tribunal erred in not considering the purchase and sale of fireclay rights independently from the coal mine transactions. The counsel contended that the transactions were separate, as evidenced by different dates and separate entries in the account books. However, the Tribunal imputed the intention to profit from the coal mine sale to the fireclay rights transactions, leading to the conclusion that the fireclay rights sale was incidental to the coal mine sale.

Upon reviewing the lower tax authorities' orders, the court found that the assessee initially claimed the profits from the fireclay rights sale did not belong to them or were capital receipts. The authorities analyzed all transactions, including the coal mine and fireclay rights transactions, and concluded that both purchases and sales were by the assessee and were incidental to each other. The court agreed with the authorities' approach, affirming that the coal mine and fireclay rights were purchased for resale purposes, justifying the taxability of the surplus amount from the fireclay rights sale under the Income-tax Act.

In conclusion, the court answered the question in the affirmative, supporting the tax department's position. The assessee was directed to pay the costs of the reference. Additionally, the court noted the non-compliance with an order for a supplementary paper book but proceeded with the reference based on existing records. Judge A. N. Sen concurred with the decision, and the question was answered in the affirmative.