THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE vs. SRI J.H. GOTLA, YADAGIRI

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1596/1973Supreme Court1985 INSC 18729 August 1985Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: V.D. TULZAPURKAR, SABYASACHI MUKHERJI, RANGANATH MISRA24 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, ran an oil mill and dealt in groundnut oil. In 1957, he gifted part of his oil mill machinery to his wife and minor children. A firm was formed by his wife and another person, to which the assessee's minor sons were admitted. The assessee leased his mill premises and machinery to this firm, which manufactured and sold groundnut oil. The assessee also agreed to render management services to the firm, earning a commission. He continued a small-scale business in groundnut cake and oil and as an abkari contractor. The assessee had significant losses carried forward from earlier years. For assessment year 1959-60, his wife's and minor children's share income from the firm, over Rs. 24,000, was included in his total income under Section 16(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. He claimed set-off of his carried-forward losses against his business profits and this share income. The Income Tax Officer rejected the set-off against the share income. Similar claims for assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 were also rejected. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the set-off.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that where Section 16(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, operates, the profits or losses from a business of the wife or minor child included in the assessee's total income should be treated as profit or loss from a 'business carried on by him' for the purpose of carrying forward and set-off under Section 24(2) of the Act. The Court reasoned that a strict literal interpretation leading to an absurd and unjust result, which could not have been intended by the legislature, should be avoided. The purpose of Section 16(3) is to counteract attempts to reduce tax liability by transferring assets. Therefore, the share income of the wife and minor children should be regarded as business income derived from business carried on by the assessee, and the assessee is entitled to set off his carried-forward losses. The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the share income of the assessee's wife and minor children, included in the assessee's total income under Section 16(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, should be regarded as business income derived from business carried on by the assessee, entitling him to set off his carried-forward losses against it? Assessee's contentions: - The object of Section 16(3)(a) is to prevent individuals from reducing tax liability by transferring assets to their spouse or minor children. - In the first year of asset transfer, losses must be accounted for in computing profits and gains from the user of those assets. Revenue's contentions: - The loss could not be included in the total income of the assessee. - For set-off of carried-forward losses under Section 24(2)(ii), the business must be continued to be carried on by the assessee in the year the set-off is claimed. This requirement is strict and not affected by circulars or subsequent amendments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 16(3),Section 24(2),Section 64,Section 70,Section 71,Section 72

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 711 TBI! <XlllISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE v.

SllI J.H. GOTLA, YADAGIR! AUGUST 29, 1985 (V .D. TULZAPIJRKAR, SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ • l Income Tax Act, 1922 Sections 16(3) and 24(2) (ii).

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 64. Asses see an Individual - Running oil mill and carrying on purchase and sale of groundnut oil - Oil mill and machinery gifted away to wife and minor children - Firm constituted by wife and another person - Assessee entering into agreement to render services to this firm - Losses incurred by assessee .in his indi- A B c vidual business in previous years - Whether set off can be D claimed against profits in his business and share income of minor children.

Statutory Interpretation.

Taxing Statutes - Interpretation of - Strict literal construction leading to absurd result - Duty of court - Construc- tion resulting in equity whether to be preferred.

The respondent-assessee wss an individual, carrying on business in purchase and sale of groundnut oil and h"' was also running an oil mill, besides being an abkari contractor. On 1st June, 1957 he had gifted away a part of the oil mill machinery, F ,to his wife and thr

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 24(2)

All 34 judgments and leading authorities on Section 24(2) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →