HOOGLY TRUST (PRIVATE) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL AND ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1659/1968Supreme Court[1969] 3 S.C.R. 55704 February 1969Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI, A.N. GROVER B D G HOOGLY8 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Hoogly Trust (Private) Ltd., carried on business in several commodities, including cloth. For assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55, losses were determined in the cloth business under Section 24(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. For subsequent assessment years (1955-56, 1956-57, 1957-58), the Income-tax Officer disallowed the carry forward and set off of these cloth business losses against profits from other businesses. The rationale was that the cloth business was distinct and not carried on during the relevant accounting years. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this view. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, however, found that the cloth dealings were part of a single business, not a distinct one, and that there was evidence of dovetailing. The High Court, on reference, answered the question against the assessee, relying on the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's findings.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held in favour of the assessee. Firstly, it ruled that the High Court cannot examine the correctness of the Tribunal's findings of fact unless a proper question challenging those findings is referred. While a misdirection in law by the Tribunal could give rise to a reference, no such attempt was made. Therefore, the Tribunal's findings of fact must be accepted as final. The only question open to the High Court was whether the cloth business could be regarded as the same business under Section 24(2). Secondly, applying established tests for determining if different ventures constitute the same business (inter-connection, inter-lacing, inter-dependence, unity via common management, organization, administration, fund, and place of business), the Court found the Tribunal's conclusion that the cloth business was part of a single business to be correct. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's answer was discharged.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the cloth business and the business in the general section constituted the same business within the meaning of Section 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (as it stood before amendment by the Finance Act of 1955)? (Mixed question of law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: (i) The findings on questions of fact by the Tribunal are final and the High Court cannot examine their correctness without a proper reference question. (ii) Based on the Tribunal's findings, the losses from the cloth business were legally liable to be carried forward and set off against profits in the relevant assessment years. Revenue's Contentions: (i) The High Court was entitled to examine the correctness of the Tribunal's findings on facts, even if the question was referred in a particular form. (ii) The cloth business was distinct from other businesses carried on by the assessee, and therefore, losses from it could not be set off against profits from other businesses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 24(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A B D G HOOGLY TRUSf (PRIVATE) LID. v. COMMis.SIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL AND ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS February 4, 1969 (J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] rncome-tax Act (11 of 1922), s. 24(2) (before its amendment by the Finance Act of 1955)-Business in several commodities--Lcss in one- Set off claimed against profits in others--QuesUon of fact-When High Court can examine its correctness.

The asses.see carried on. business· in several commodities including cloth.

In tlie assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55 the assessee suffered loss in cloth business, and it was determined for the purposes of s. 24(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (as it stood before the amendment in 1955). During the subsequent three assessment years, the Income-tax Officer refused to allow the carry forward of these losses and their set off against the busi- ness profits of th°"" years on the ground that the losses determined in the preceding years arose out of the cloth business which was different from the other business carried on by the assessee.

He held that since the cloth business was not carried on during the relevant year of account the loss therefrom in prec

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) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →