R. DALMIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

A D .E .F fH 654 R. DALMIA v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI January 19, 1977 [R. S. SARKARIA AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.J Indian Income Tax Act (XI of 1922)-s. 2(6C) (iii)-Scope of-"Person concerned in the management of b11siness"-Meanin11 of. Words and plzrases-"concerned", "manage", meaning of. Section 2(6C) (iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 provides that the value of any benefit or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not, obtained from a company either by a director or by any other person who has a substantial interest in .the company (that is to. say, who .is concerned in the management of the busmess of the company, bemg beneficial owner of shares, not being shares entitled to fixed rate of dividend carrying not less than 20% of !he voting power) and any sum paid by any such company in respect of anv obli- gation which, but for such appointment, w011ld have been payable by the director or other person aforesaid is income .. The assessee was the beneficial owner of 1800 out of 3000 equiiy shares of a company. He was, however, not its director. He had a similar int<:rest in another company. Both the companies had spent on his personal necessities a large sum of money, which the Income-tax Officer treated as his income under s. 2(6C) (iii) of the Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, as also the Tribunal, dismissed his appeal against the order of the Income-tax Officer and the High Court answered the reference against the assessee. . ' In appeal to this Court it was contended that ·the expression "concerned" in the management of the business of the company takes in only the person wh• legally participates in the management of its business and not one who has only remote control of its business, even if he had the majority of voting power. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : The expression "person concerned in the management of business" may take in not only a person who directly participates or engages in the management of the business but also one who indirectly controls its manage- ment through the managerial staff from behind the scenes. [657 BJ

R. DALMIA. v. COMM. OF I.T. (Sarkaria, J.) 655 (2) The .fast part of the clause is. confined to the obtaini_ng of the value of any benefit or perquisite from a company by a director, eveJ! if he has no subs- · ·. tantial interest in the· company. The second part applies to a person who may riot be a director but has a substantial interest iri the company. What is ."subs- . tantial interest'' is further equated by the succeeding expression "that is· to say" with the co-existence of two elements, namely, (i) concern in the management of the business of the company and (ii) beneficial ownership of shares (not being shares entitled to a fixed rate of dividend) carrying not less than 20% of the voting power. [657 G-HJ In the instant case, the ass,,ssee. obtained the benefit from the company hold- ing 1800 out of 3000 shares, that is, carrying a voting power of 60% and, therefore, satisfied the second element. His own admission that he was in A B a control of the company necessarily includes an admission of his being "con- ~erned in the management of the business of the company". [658 A-BJ '- CIVIL APPELLATE. JURI ICTION: Civil Appeal No. 283 of 1972. C Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated ,~ 12-7~1971 of the Delhi High Court .in Income Tax Reference No. 31 of 1967. . .I Bishamber Lal for the Appellant. V. S. Desai, !. · Ramamurthi and· R. N. Sachthey for the Res- D pondent. Tl1e Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment, dated July 12, 1971, of the High Court of Delhi. It aris~s out of these facts : The. appellant (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) is an indi- vidual. The assessment year is 19 5 5-5 6. E Bharat Union Agencies Pvt. Ltd. had spent Rs. 53,398/- after the personal necessities of the assessee during the previous year ending 30-9-1964, without charging for the same. The assessee was not a director of the said Company. He however was the beneficial owner F of 1800 shares out of the total of 3000 equity shares of the said Com- ~ pany during the previous year. Similarly, Allen Berry and Co. Pvt. t Ltd .. had spent a sum of Rs. 4406/- after the personal necessities of the assessee, without charging for the same. The Income-tax Officer treated the total benefit of Rs. 57,804/- received by the assessec from these two Companies, as his 'income' G under s. 2(6C) (iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 which was intro- duced by the Finance Act, 1955 with effect from 1-4-1955, and charged it,to tax along with some other items of income. The assessee carried an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Com- missioner who found th11,t the assessee was beneficial owner of the shares of Bharat Union Agencies. Pvt. Ltd. carrying more than 20 per H cent of the voting power. He further held on the basis of certain findings in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry on the adminis- tration of Dalmia Jain Companies published in 1963, that the assessee

A B c SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977] 2 S.C.R. had 100 per cent of the share-holding control of Allen Berry and Co. Pvt. Ltd. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not speci- fically deal with the question whether the assessee was "concerned· in the management" of both these Companies.

In the result he upheld the order of the Income-tax Officer. The assessee preferred a further appeal to the Inc:ome-tax Appel- late Tribunal which held that the asscssee was "concerned in the management of the Bha.rat Union Agencies (P) Ltd., being the bene- ficial owner of shares carrying more than 20% of the voting power, and as such the benefit of Rs. 53,398/- received by him from that Company was his 'income' within the later part of Clause (iii) of s. 2(6C) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. On this reasoning the Tribu- nal dismissed the assessee's appeal in regard to the item of Rs. 53,398/-. However, it allowed, on a different ground his appeal with regard to the item of Rs. 4406/- received from Allen Berry and Co. (P) Ltd. In this appeal we are not concerned with that item any more. At the iristance of the assessec, the Tribunal stated the case and referred the following question under s. 66 ( 1) of the Income-tax Act, D 1922 to the High Court : E F G H "Whether on the facts and in ·the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 53,398/- spent by Bharat Union Agencies P. Ltd. after the personal necessities of the assessee is income within the meaning of section 2(6C) (iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922". The High Court answered this question against the assessee. Hence this appeal. At the outset, Shri Bishamber Lal, appearing for the appellant, tried to contend that the item of Rs. 53,398/- received by the assessee from Bharat Union Agencies Pvt. Ltd. was not a "benefit or perquisite" within the contemplation of s. 2(6C) (iii) of the 1922 Act because, firstly, the constituents of this item were not cash amounts 1 but gifts or bounties, and secondly, the receipt of this benefit by the ~ assessee was unauthorised and could not be claimed by him as of right on the basis of any agreement with the Company. This was altogether a new plea. It was not even indirectly raised before the authorities under the Income-tax Act or the High Court. lt has not been raised even in the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution. It was never the case of the assessee that this amount of Rs. 53,398/- was not "benefit obtained", by the assessee from the Company within the meaning of s. 2 ( 6C) (iii). On the contrary it is apparent from the judgment of the Tribunal. that there was "no dispute about the fact that the assessee received bene- fits from both the Companies to the extent stated by the authorities below", i.e. benefits to the extent of Rs. 53,398/- and Rs. 4406/" were received by the assessee from Bharat Union Agencies P. Ltd. and Allen Berry and Co. Pvt. Ltd. respectively. The plea now sought to R. DALMIA v. COMM. OF I.T. (Sarkaria, J.) 657 be raised in regard to the item of Rs. 53,398/- involv~s a question of fact.. We therefore did not permit the Counsel to raise this plea for the first time at the time of arguments before us. Counsel next contended that the expression "concerned in . tl.\! management of the business of the Company" takes in only that per- son who by virtue of a position or office held by him in the Company, legally and actually participates in the management of its business and not he who holds no such position or office but is in remote control of the Company and its affairs merely on account of being in owner- ship of a certain number of shares, carrying more than 20 per cent or even the majority of the voting power. In support of this restricted construction of the term "concerned'', Counsel referred to a decision of the Madras High Court in Arya Bhavan, Madras v. M. S. Narayana Rao('), wherein Rajamannar C.J. held that the word "concerned" as used in the context of 'workman' in s. 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, connotes a more intimate and direct relation to the matter than the word "interest" and therefore this term should be given a more restricted meaning than the word "interest". Mr. Bishamber Lal also referred to the meaning of the terms "concern- ed", "concerning" as given in the Dictionary, "Words and Phrases", Permanent Edition pp. 504-505 Vol.

i ... R. DALMIA v. GOMM. OF J.T. (Sarkaria, /.) 659 carry on 'business' (Shorter Oxford Dictionary, Webster New World Dictionary). "Management" includes the act of managing by direc- tion, or regulation, or administration or control or superintendence. Construed with reference to the context, and the circumstances of A a case, the expression "person concerned in the management of the business" may take in not only a person who directly participates or engages in the management of the business but also one who indirectly B controls its management through the managerial staff, from behind the scenes. The assessee's admission that he is in control of the Company necessarily includes an admission of his being "concerned in the management of the business of the Company", We, therefore, agree with the High Court, that the ambit of the term "concerned" in s. 2(6C) (iii) cannot be restricted to a person who is an employee of the business or an office-holder of the Company. In the context of C "management" it is wide enough to include every person 'interested' in the management, in the sense of having the direction and control of the managerial staff. On the facts of the case, the assessee was such a person. We are therefore, of opinion that the High eourt was right in answering the question referred to it, against the assessee. D

The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. P.B.R . Appeal dismissed. 8-l 12SCI/77