9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (7) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Gur Refining Co. Ltd. and started manufacturing sugar. During the period between January 29, 1946, and April 23, 1946, the assessee purchased 41,300 shares of the New Savan Sugar and Gur Refining Company Ltd. for ₹ 12,17,096. On April 30, 1947, the entire block of 41,300 shares were sold to the Produce Exchange Corporation Ltd. for ₹ 846,750 resulting in a loss, which was determined to be ₹ 3,70,356. This loss was accepted by the Appellate Tribunal as a trading loss. It fell to be considered in the immediately preceding year and after setting off the loss against the year's income, there remained a resultant loss of ₹ 2,27,085. This loss was carried forward under section 24(2). The unabsorbed loss of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e existence of one must depend upon the continuance of the other. The fact that the sugar mill was obtained on lease in 1945 and shares purchased in 1946 would not make the two businesses, according to the Tribunal, the same business . The Tribunal has pointed out that the evidence on record does not show that the two businesses were interconnected or were inextricably connected with each other to constitute the same business within the meaning of sub-section (2) of section 24 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the assessee's claim. On the above facts and in the circumstances, the following question of law has been framed by this court : Was there any evidence before the Tribunal on which it coul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taining reliefs under section 24(2). In the paper-book we do not find, for instance, that the assessee adduced any evidence as to why it started purchasing the shares of the lessor-company more than six months after the commencement of the lease. There is also no evidence to show that the manufacture of sugar by the assessee was in any way benefited by the purchase of the shares. There was no evidence as to why the entire block of shares was sold in April, 1947, to the Produce Exchange Corporation. The meaning of the expression same business appearing in sub-section (2) of section 24 of the Act has been judicially considered in a number of decisions. It is unnecessary to refer to them all in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relation of the businesses, the employment of same capital, the maintenance of common books of account, employment of same staff to run the business, the nature of the different transactions, the possibility of one being closed without affecting the texture of the other and so forth. When, however, the true facts have been determined, the ultimate conclusion is a legal inference from proved facts, and it is one of mixed law and fact, on which depends the application of section 24(2) of the Act ... The position, therefore, is that whether or not it is the same business is dependent on a variety of matters bearing on the unity of the business, but the real question, the central fact, the principal test is, whether there was any intercon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... took a lease of a factory belonging to the New Savan and Gur Refining Co. Ltd. In 1946, the assessee purchased the shares of the lessor-company and started the business of purchasing and selling shares. The Tribunal expresses the view that this would not make the two businesses the same business . The Tribunal states that nothing would hang upon the question as to whether the shares were of the lessor-company or of other companies. The evidence on record, the Tribunal has concluded, does not show that the two businesses were interlaced and interconnected and were inextricably mixed with each other. On a close scrutiny of the materials that were made available to the tax authorities by the assessee in the present case, we are of opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
