COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/EXCESS PROFITS TAX, BOMBAY CITY versus MESSRS. BHOGILAL LAHERCHAND INCLUDING BATLIBOI & CO., BOMBAY

1953

Akhlakali Ha.Jatalli v. Th•Stateof Bombtg.

1953

Dec. 18.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1954]

charged accepted and appellant discharged and forthwith set at liberty.

the

acquitted

and

Agent for the respondent : G. H. Rajadhyaksha.

Appeal dllowed.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/EXCESS PROFITS TAX, BOMBAY CITY v. MESSRS. BHOGILAL LAHERCHAND including BATLIBOI & CO., BOMBAY.

[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, S. R. DAs, GHULAM HASAN and JAGANNADHADAS JJ.]

Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), s. 42(1)-Scope of.

the

this period, the Bombay head office and

A Hindu undivided family was carrying on business in Bom bay, Madras and the Mysore State, being treated as a single asses see and its relevant accounting period was 10th October, 1941, to the Mysore branch 8th November, 1942. During the Madras purchased goods from Income- branch of branch tax Officer estimated profits in at Rs. 75,000 on the sale of these goods )n Mysore. In view of the provisions of s. 42 of the Indian Income-tax Act, half of this profit, i.e., to the extent of Rs. 37,500, was deemed to accrue or arise in British India because of the business connection of the non-resid~ ent branch in British India :

of Rs. 2 these purchases of

The the Mysore its

lakhs odd.

lakhs and

India at

British

Rs. 3

value

Held, that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the In come-tax Officer was right in applying the provisions of s. 42 (1) of the Income-tax Act and holding that Rs. 37,500 were profits deemed to accrue in British India and in including in the assess~ ment a portion thereof.

Held also,

that s. 42 sub-ss. (!) and (3), cover cases of both

residents as well as non-residents.

Commissioner of Income-tax v. Western India Life Insurance Co. [1945] (13 LT.R. 405) dissented from. Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal (A.LR. 1950 Cal. 551), Commissioner of Income-tax/Excess Profits Tax, Madras v. Parasu ram /ethanand (A.LR. 1950 Mad. 631), Commissioner of Income-tax. Bombay v. Ahmedb}iai Umarbhai & Co. ( [ 1950] S.C.R. 335), referred to.

S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

445

C1v1L

APPELLATE

JuR1so1cTroN : Civil Appeal

1953

Commissioner of Income-tax Exc1ss Profit s Tax, Bombay City v• Messrs. Bhogilal I.aherchand

Mahajan] .

No. 160 of 1950.

Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated the at Income

30th March, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature Bombay (Chagla C. J. and Tendolkar J.) Tax Reference No. 34 of 1950.

in

C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General . A. Mehta, with him) for the appellant. R. /. Kolah for the respondent. 1953. December 18. The Judgment of the Court

for India, (Porus

was delivered by

MAHAJAN J.-This is an appeal from the Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay delivered on a reference under Indian section 66 ( 1) of the Act, 1922, whereby the High Court Income-tax answered the first referred question in the negative.

of this

The assessment in question concerns family was

the year 1943- carrying on 44. A Hindu undivided the Mysore State. in Bombay, Madras and business . firm on Its business was taken over by a registered 17th March, 1942. For the purpose appeal however is not material. The case this· circumstance assumptipn that a single has been dealt with on the assessee carried on business from 10th October, 1941, to 8th November, 1942, the relevant accounting year. to the accounts of the assessee, during this According the Mysore branch purchased goods from the period Bombay head office the value of Rs. 2,45,455. The Income-tax officer esti mated the Mysore branch in British India at Rs. 3,00,000 and its profits at Rs. 75,000 on the sale of these goods in Mysore. In view of the provisions of section 42 of the Act half of this profit, i.e., to the extent of Rs. 37,000, was deemed to accrue the business or arise connection of the British India.

India, because of non-resident branch

and the Madras branch of

these purchases of

in British

111

It was contended that resident in India, section 42 the case, because that section had application only

the assessee being a person could not be invoked in ·to

446

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[19541 •

19;3

Commissioru:r of income-tax E'xcels Profits T ttX; Bombay . City v. Messrs. Blwgilal Laherc!1and

Income-tax v. Western

of non-residents. The

cases Income-tax Tribunal following the decision of the Bombay High Court, in India Life Commissione;- of and Insurance Co. Ltd.(' ), upheld this ruled that no part of the Mysore profit could he taxed in British India. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax/Excess Profits Tax, Bombay City, three questions were referred to the High Court under sec tion 66 (1), the first of these being:-

contention,

"Whether in

the circumstances of the case

can the profits on the sale of goods in the Mysore State be under deemed section 42 ( 1) of the

India in British Indian Income-tax Act."

to accrue or arise

The High Court returned an answer to the question

in the negative after resettling it in these terms :-

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of Income-tax Officer was right in applying the case the the provisions of section 42 ( 1) of the Income-tax Act and holding that Rs. 37,500 were profits deemed to accrue in British India and in including in the assess ment a portion thereof."

This appeal is before us on a certificate granted by the High Court, and the only question canvassed here Income-tax is whether section 42 (I) of the Act has application assessee or whether a non-resident assessee alone.

the case of a resident is

to its scope

limited

Indian

to

It is common ground that if section 42 of the Act has no application to the case of a resident assessee the whole of the Mysore profit, namely Rs. 75,001), the year 1943- cannot be is within 44. On the other hand, if such an assessee the ambit of in the sum of the section, Rs. 37,000 or any part of it would be liable to assess ment during the assessment year in question.

included in the assessment of

that event

Section 42 of the Act is in these terms :- " (1) All income, profits

accrumg or gains through or ansmg, whether directly or indirectly, from any business connection in the taxable territories,

or

(1) [1945] 13 I.T.R. 405.

S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

447

or • through or from any money lent at interest and brought into the taxable territories in cash· or in Com.missioner kind or through or from the sale, exchange or transfer of Income-tax of a capital asset in the taxable territories, shall be Excess Profits · chargeable to income-tax either in his name or in the Tax, 1!ombay

1953

name of his agent, and in the latter case such agent shall be deemed to be, for all t?e purposes of this Act, Messrs.vBhogilal the assessee in respect of such mcome-tax :

Laherchand

Oity

.

Provided that where the person entitled to the income, profits or gains is not resident in the taxable territories, the income-tax so chargeable may be recovered by deduction under any of the provisions of section 18 and that any arrears of tax may be - recovered also in accordance with the provisions of this Act from any assets of the non-resident person which are, or may·at any time come within the tax able territories :

MahajanJ.

Provided further that any such agent, or any per son who apprehends that he may be assessed as such an agent, may retain out of any money payable by him to such non-resident person a sum equal to his estimated liability under this sub-section, and in the event of any disagreement between the non-resident person and such agent or person as to the amount to be so retained, such· agent or person may secure from the Income-tax Officer a certificate stating the amount to be so retained pending final settlement of the liability, and the certificate so obtained shall be his warrant for retaining that amount :

Provided further that the amount recoverable from such agent or person at the time of final settle ment shall not exceed the amount specified in such certificate e'xcept to the extent to which such agent or person may at such time have in his hands addi tional assets of such non-resident person.

(2) Where a person not resident or not ordinarily resident in the taxable territories carries on busimss with a person resident in the taxable territories, and it appears to the Income-tax Officer, that owing to the close connection betw\:)en sqc}i per1:39~s t:Q.e cours(f

59

448

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1954)

1953

of business is so arranged that the business don~ by the resident person with the person not resident or OommiSBioner ~f Income-tax not ordinarily resident produces to the resident either Excess Profits no profits or less than the ordinary profits which might Tax, Bombay be expected to arise in that business, the profits deriv- ed therefrom or which may reasonably be deemed to ·z 1 have been derived therefrom, shall be chargeable to f h , t e res1 ent person who income-tax m t e name o shall be dee:qied to be, for all the purposes of this Act, the assessee in respect of such income-tax.

cssrs. Laherchand

Mahajan J.

- City

ogi a

'd

h

vB_h

M

the (3) In the case of a business of which all operations are not carried out in the taxable territories the profits and gains of the business deemed under this section to accrue or arise in the taxable territories ·shall be only such profits and gains as are reasonably attributable to that part of the operations carried out in the taxable territories,"

Before its amendment in the year 1939 the first part

of the section ran thus : --

" 42( 1 ).

ln the case of any person residing 01~t of British I ndi:a, all profits or gains accruing or arising to such person, whether directly or indirectly, through or from 11,ny business connection or property in British India, shall be deemed to be income accruing or aris ing within British India, and shall be chargeable to income-tax in the name of the agent of any such person, and such agent shall be deemed to be, for all the purposes of this Act, ,the assessee in respect of such income-tax : ".

'

The rest of the section was substantially in th~ same terms. In spite of its amendment in 1939 the marginal to refer to "non note to the section continued re;idents " as before, though the words "residing out of British India" were deleted from the body of sub section ( 1). The retention of this marginal note gave rise to conflicting decisions on the question whether the section in spite of the change made in its language in 1939 still continued to have application to cases of "non-residents" alone. this matter, by Act XXII of 1947, the marginal note was amended and it now is in these terms:-

In order to clarify

• -

_, rr'

) I

I

..

\

S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

449

"Income deemed to accrue or a1ise within British

l95J

India."

City v.

Oommissioncv It is significant that the changt's made in section o.f Income.tax 42 in the year 1939 were consequential to the entire Excess Profits recasting of section 4 of the Act. Section 4 as it stood Tax, Bombay prior to 1939 charged income-tax on all income, profits or gains, from whatever source derived, accruing or Messrs. Blwgital arising, or received in British India or deemed under Lahenhand the provisions of the Act to accrue, or arise, or to be received in British India. It further provided that Mahajan J. the income, profits and gains accruing or arising with- out British India to a person resident in British India, shall, if they are received in or brought into British India, be deemed to have accrued or arisen in British India and to be income, profits and gains of the year in which they are so received or brought, notwith- standing the.fact that they did not so accrue or arise in that year. Hy the amendment in the year 1939, the total income of any previous year of any person ·was defined as including all income, profits and gains from whtitever source derived which

"(a) are receivfld or are deemed to be received in British India in such year by or on behalf of such person, or

(b) if such person

is reBident in British India

during such year,--

(i) accrue or arise or are deemed to accrue or

1irise to him i'!i British India during such year; or

(ii) accrue or arise to him without British India

during such year ; or ............. ..

( c) if such person is not resident in British India during such year, accrue or arise or are deemed to accrue or arise to him in British India during such year; ............... "

This legislative change in the Act made all income accruing or arising or deemed to accrue or arise in British India during the previous year to a resident the subject of a charge, apart from income accruing or arising without- British India during the previous year.

450

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1954]

M

1963

The term "deemed" brings within the net of charge- aommissianer apility income not actually accruing but which is of Income-tax supposed notionally to have accrued. It involves a Excm Profits number of concepts. By statutory fiction income Tax, Bombay which can in no sense be said to accrue at all may be eonsidered as so accruing. Similarly, the fiction may relate to the place, the person or be in respect of the

~:~;~cha~~· a year of taxability. Section 42(1) defines what income

. vBh .1 1

City

is deemed to accrue within the taxable territories.

It is Mahajan J. only by application of this definition that one class of income "deemed to accrue to a resident within taxable territories" within the meaning of section 4(1) (b) (i) can be estimated. The words "In the case of any person residing out of British India" were deleted from section 42(1) during the pendency of the amendment Bill of 1939 in the Council of State presumably with the object of making the section applicable to any person who had any income which in a primary sense arose in British India, even though technically it had arisen abroad, irrespective of the circumstance whether that person was resident, ordinarily resident or not ordinarily resident.

•

By section 8 of Act XXIII of 1941, clause (c) ·was added to section 14 of the Act. No effect was to be given to this amendment before the year ending 31st March, 1943. The relevant part of section 14 after this amendment is in these terms :-

"The tax shall not be payable by an assessee in respect of any income, profits or gains accruing or aris ing to him within a Part B State, unless such income, profits or gains are received or deemed to be received ·in or are brought into the taxable territories in the previous. year by or on behalf of the assessee, or are assessable under section 12-B or section 42."

.

In view of these legislative changes in the.provisions of sections 4, 14 and 42 of the. Act, the conclusion is irresistible that the object of recasting section 42{1) in general terms _was to make the definition of·. ''.deemed incprp~e"~given in the section generally applicable to all classes of assessees. This sub-section has been drafted . in the wid~t Wm• and th~• nothing whateoov~ in(~

S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

451

its language to suggest that its operation is confined to non-residents only. Wherever the legislature intend- Commissioner ed to limit the opera~ion of any part of this section to of Income-tax, non-residents alone, it said so in express terms. Sub- Excess Profits section (2) and the latter portion of sub-sectio.1 (1) Tax, Bombay expressly concern themselves with the case of non- residents, while sub-sect.ions (nand (3) ar~ so framed Messr6.v~hogilal that they cover both residents and non-residents.

Laherchand

City

1953

A Bench of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner

of Income-tax v. Western India Life Insurance Co.('), Mahajan J. held t~at notwithstanding its amendment in 1939 the section applied only to non-residents. Reliance was placed, inter alia, on the circumstance that the marginal note appended to the section indicating that it applied to non-residents alone, had not been deleted. To avoid this criticism and to remove doubts the legislature by Act XXII of 194 7 changed the marginal note also.

It seems to us that any other construction of the section would create an anomaly, inasmuch as the Part B State income falling under section 42 would not be assessable in the hands of a resident, but it would be assessable in the hands of a non-resident, because the Income-tax Act while it ropes in world income of a resid ent, exempts income accruing within the Part B States from its ambit, except when such income 1s received or is brought into taxable territory or comes within the ambit of section 42. Such a construction would be contrary to the policy of the Act.

It is unnecessary to dwell on this point at any great length in view of the circumstance that the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Western India Life Insurance Co.('), has been dissented from and for. good reasons, ill subsequent cases.

In Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Comrnissioner of Income tax, West Bengal(2) a Bench of the Calcutta High Court considered this matter at some length and reached the decision that sub-sections (I) and. (3) of section 42 covered cases of both residents as well as non-residents. The same view was taken by a Bench of the Madras 'High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax/Excess

(1) [1945] 13 I.T.:E~. 405.

(2) A.I.R. 1950 Cal. ~5I.

452

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1954]

Profits 'l'llX, 111 a<lras v .. Pams'Urmn J ethanand('). Again the matter was discussed in this court in Commissioner of Incorne-tax, Bornbrty v·. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Go.( 2 ) by Patanjali Sastri J., as he then was, and also by Mukherjea J. in the same case. This is what Patanjali Sastr! J. said on this point : ·

j953

Conllini.,·liioner of lnco1ne·tax Excess Profits Tax, Bo11ibay 0-ity v. Met»srs. Bhogilal

MahajanJ.

in

..

"It is noteworthy that the first part of sub-section (1) La.herchand of section 42 providing that certain· classes of income are to be deemed to accrue or arise in British India is not confined iu its i1,pplicatiou to non residents, but is in general terms so as to be appli cable to both residents and non-residents. Before its amendment in 1939 the sub-section began with the words 'in the case of any person residing out of British India' which obviously restricted the application of the provision to non-resident persons, but its amended form the sub-section has been recast into two distinct parts, the first of which is not so restricted, ;md the second part alone, which begins with the words 'and where the person entitled to the income, profits and gains is not resident in British India', is made applicable to non-resident persons, thereby showing that the former part applies to both residents and non-residents. The opening words of the first proviso also point to the same conclusion, for these words would be surplusage if the sub-section as a whole applied only to non-residents. A contrary view has, no doubt, been expressed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of lncorne tax v. Western India Life Ins'Urance Go. Ltd.('). Though reference was made in that case to the alteration in the structure of sub-section (1) its significance, as it seems to me, was not properly appreciated. The facts that the marginal note to the whole section. refers to 'non-residents' and that the section itself finds a place in Chapter V headed 'Liability in special cases' were relied upon as supporting the view that sub-section (I) as a whole applies ·only to non-residents. As pointed out by the Privy Council in Bal·mj K1mwar v. J ll{fatpctl Singh('), marginal notes in an Indian statute, as in an

(1) A.LR. 1950 Mad. 63r. (2) (1950] S.C.R. 335.

(3) [1945] 13 I.T.R, 405.

• (4) 26 All. 393, 406.

S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

453

1953

Act of Parliament, cannot be referred to for the pur- pose of construing the statute, and it may be men- Commissioner tioned in this connection that the marginal note relied of Income-tax on has since been replaced by the words ( Income .Excess Profit• deemed to accrue or arise within British India', which Tax, Bombay makes it clear th~t the main object of sub-section (1) was to define that expression (see. ~ection 12 (a) of Act Messrs.vRhogilal XXII of 1947). Nor can the title of a chapter be legitimately used to restrict the plain terms of an enactment."

MahaJan J.

Laherchand

City

The same view was expressed by Mukherjea J. Nothing that has been said by Mr. Kolah before us justifies reconsideration of these opinions.

Mr. Kolah argued that when the world income of a resident was brought within the net of chargeability by section 4 in 1939 it was then wholly unnecessary to include such an assessee in the ambit of section 42. In our judgment, this contention is fallacious. 'Vhat ever in come arises in a primary sense to a resident in taxable territories is chargeable under section 4 (1) (b) (i). Hence it, was necessary to make section 42 applicable to such a'case. Whatever other considera tion may arise in estimating the foreign income of a resident will not be applicable to income deemed to accrue within taxable territory. Moreover, as above pointed out, in view of the provisions of section 14 (c) resident assessees but for section 42(1) would not be liable to assessment regarding income accruing to them jn Part B States, even if there is a business connection in taxable territory. Mr. Kolah was unable to suggest any reasonable explanation for the deletion of the words "any person residing out of British India" from section 42 ( 1) as it stood before 1939. The only pur pose in deleting these words could be to bring residents within the ambit of the section. There is no reason whatsoever for not giving to the plain words of the section the meaning that on the face of it they bear.

For the reasons given above we are of the opinion that the answer returned by the High Court of Bombay it was wrong. to the first question referred We therefore allow this appeal· witl:i costs and answer

to

•

I

454

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1954]

1953

this question referred affirmative.

to

the High Court in

the

Appeal allowed.

Agent for the appellant: G. H. Rajadhyaksha. Agent for the respondent: Rajinder Narain.

Cornmi_ssioner of. Income-tax Excess Profits Tax, Bombay· City v. 1rf.essrs. Bhogilal Laherchand

1953

Nov. 26.

SUKHDEV SINGH SODHI v. THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGES OF THE PEPSU HIGH COURT. [MUKHERJEA, VIVIAN BOSE and BHAGWATI JJ.] Contempt of court-Contempt of Judges of High Court-Power to another High Court- of S1'preme Court to transfer proceedings Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, ss. 1(2), 527-Constitution of India, art. 215-Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, s. 3.

The Supreme Court bas no power under section 527 of the Criminal Procedure Code or under any other provision of law to transfer from a High Court, proceedings which that High Court has initiated for contempt of itself, to another High Court.

Section 527 of the Criminal Procedrire Code does not apply to such a oase as the power of a High Court to institute proceedings for contempt of itself and to punish the contemner where neces sary, is a special jurisdiction which is inherent in a.11 courts of record and section 1 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code excludes such special jurisdictions from its scope.

It is desirable, on general principles of justice, that a Judge who has been personally attacked should not as far as possible hear a. contempt matter which, to that extent, concerns him personally.

•

In re Abdul Hasan

In re Abdool and JJiahtab

(8 W.R. Or. 32), Surendra.nath Banerjea v. Chief Justice and Judges of the High Coi<rt of Bengal .Jauhar (I.L.R. 48 All. (10 I.A. 171), 711), In the matter of Sashi Bhi<shan Sarbadhicary (I.L.R. 29 All. 95), Crown v. Sayyad Habib (I.L.R. 6 Lah. 528 F.B. I, In re Adbul Hasan Jai<har (I.L.R. 48 All. 711), In the matter of Mi<slim Ont look, Lahore (A.LR. 1927 Lah. 610), In re JJfurli Manohar Pra.<ad (I.L.R. 8 Pat. 323), Harkishen Lal v. The Crown (I.L.R.18 Lah. 69), Ambard v. Attorney-General .for Trinidad ct Tobago ([1936J A.O. 322), William Rainy v. The Justices of Sierre Leone (8 Moo. P.O. 47), InthematterofK.L.Gauba (IL.R. 23 Lah.411),Parash·tt' ram Detaram v. Emperor (A.I.R. 1945 P'. 0. 134), ·Emperor y.