SH. S.P. JAISWAL ETC. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2587/1983Supreme Court[1997] 2 S.C.R. 74606 March 1997Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: S.C. AGRAWAL, G.B. PATTANAIK B SH. S.P. JAISWAL ETC.10 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Managing Director of Kamal Distillery Company Limited, debited an amount to the credit of a partnership firm constituted by his children. This amount was shown as returned to the assessee in the firm's accounts and then as a loan given by the assessee to his children on the same day. For assessment year 1963-64, the assessee initially showed interest from this loan in his return but later filed a revised return deleting it. The Assessing Officer taxed this interest in the assessee's hands. The assessee's appeals to the Commissioner and Tribunal failed. For subsequent assessment years, the Assessing Officer again sought to tax the interest income, concluding no genuine loan was advanced. The Tribunal held the transaction was not benami and the interest income could not be taxed in the assessee's hands. The Revenue appealed to the High Court, which held the transaction was not a genuine loan and the interest could be taxed in the assessee's hands under Section 61. The present appeal is before the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the transaction between the assessee and his children's firm, involving the purported return of money and subsequent re-transfer as a loan, was a paper device designed to reduce the assessee's tax burden and could not be considered a genuine loan. The Court found no error in the High Court's judgment, stating it had not exceeded its advisory jurisdiction. The assessee's contention that the interest income had already been taxed in the hands of the children was held to be of no relevance, as the Assessing Officer has the right to tax the 'right person' liable according to law. The Court referred to the principle that legislation is designed to circumvent attempts to avoid tax liability through settlements, and income that a taxpayer seeks to disembarrass themselves of should still be treated as their income. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court erred in its advisory jurisdiction under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by interfering with the Tribunal's finding that the transaction was a loan? 2. Whether the interest income derived from the alleged loan to the assessee's children could be taxed in the hands of the assessee, particularly when it was contended that the interest had already been taxed in the hands of the children? Assessee's Contentions: - A father is entitled to lend money to his children without charging interest, and income from such a loan cannot be taxed in the father's hands. - The interest income derived from the loan had already been taxed in the hands of the children, and therefore, it could not be taxed again. - The High Court exceeded its advisory jurisdiction under Section 256 by interfering with the Tribunal's finding that the transaction was a loan. Revenue's Contentions: - The impugned transaction was merely a paper adjustment and not a loan in any sense, thus attracting the provisions of Section 61 of the Act. - Consequently, the income accruing therefrom should be taxed in the hands of the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 61,Section 256(1),Section 256(2),Section 16(3)(a)(iii),Section 64(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A B SH. S.P. JAISWAL ETC. v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MARCH 6, 1997 (S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] Income TaxAct, 1961-Sections 61, 256(1) and (2),-Assessee-Manag- ing Director--{Jave loan to his children-Assessing Offiqer taxed the assessee for interest derived from the loan-Tribunal held it not a benami transaction, C and interest derived from income cannot be taxed in the hands of asses- see-On appeal, High Court held the transaction not a genuine loan-Interest amount can be taxed in the hands of assessee-fle/d, No e"or in the judgment of High Court-No Interference called for.

Income Tax Act, 1961-Section 256-Juri iction of the High Court- D Extent of.

The appellant-assessee, Managing Director of the Company 'K' debited certain amount to the credit of partnership firm 'M', constituted by his children. the aforesaid amount was shown in the accounts of firm E 'M' to have returned to the assessee, but on the very same day, it was shown that the assessee has given the said amonnt as loan to his children. For the assessment year 1963-64 the interest derived from the loan amount was shown by asses see in his return bnt later a revised return was filed

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 61

All 80 judgments and leading authorities on Section 61 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →