FIRST INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SALEM vs. M/S. SHORT BROTHERS (P) LTD.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 97/1965Supreme Court[1966] 3 S.C.R. 8415 December 1965Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI INCOME9 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that while normally a High Court should not entertain a writ petition when an alternative remedy exists, it is a matter of discretion, and the Court would not interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion if it deemed the case fit for invocation. Regarding the taxability of capital gains from agricultural lands, the Court ruled that under Section 12-B, 'capital assets' do not include lands from which agricultural income is derived. Therefore, profits from the transfer of such lands are not chargeable to tax as capital gains. The Court further clarified that the expression 'accumulated profits' in Section 2(6-A) does not include capital gains outside specific excepted periods. Realization of appreciated value of assets is considered capital rise, not business profit, unless included in capital gains. Consequently, the distribution by the liquidator of the rise in capital value of agricultural lands would not be deemed a dividend for the purpose of the Income-tax Act. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the assessee's claim was not for exemption under Section 4(3)(viii) but based on the receipt not being income chargeable to tax as a dividend under Section 12. The case of Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar was deemed inapplicable.

What were the facts?

The respondent company, M/s. Short Brothers (P) Ltd., sold its assets, including agricultural lands and buildings, on December 24, 1959. Subsequently, on February 6, 1960, it was resolved to voluntarily wind up the company. The liquidators distributed Rs. 8,50,000 to the shareholders on March 30, 1960. The Income-tax Officer (ITO), Salem, proposed to treat this amount as dividends and sought to recover tax from the liquidators under Section 18(3D) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The liquidators contended that the amount represented capital appreciation from the sale of agricultural lands and buildings, thus not liable to tax, and alternatively, that it constituted 'current profits' not falling under the definition of dividend in Section 2(6-A)(c). The High Court issued a writ of prohibition, finding the ITO's demand non-conformist with law as it failed to determine if any portion represented capital gains from agricultural lands.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court was justified in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution when an alternative remedy of assessment and rectification was available to the assessee? 2. Whether capital gains arising from the sale of lands yielding agricultural income, which are not chargeable to tax under Section 12-B, would still be taxable as 'dividends' under Section 12 upon distribution by a liquidator? Assessee's Arguments: The liquidators argued that the distributed amount was capital appreciation from the sale of agricultural lands and buildings, hence not taxable. They further contended that the amount represented 'current profits' of the year in which the company resolved to wind up, and therefore, not a 'dividend' as defined under Section 2(6-A)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue, represented by the ITO, contended that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition, bypassing the statutory remedies. They also argued, relying on Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, that since dividends from agricultural income are not exempt under Section 4(3)(viii), distributions from capital gains on such lands should also be taxable as dividends.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 18(3D),Section 2(6-A),Section 12-B,Section 4(3)(viii),Section 12,Section 2(4A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

FIRST INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SALEM v. MJS. SHORT BROIBERS (P) Ltd.

December 15, 1965 {K. SUBBA RAO, J. C. SHAH ANll S. M. S!KRI, JJ.] Income-tax Act (11 of 1922), ss. 2(6-A)and 12-B-"Accumu/ated Profits", meaning of-If inc/ud<s capital gains from sale of lands yielding agricultural income.

After the respondenl-company sold it• asoets, which included agricul- tural lands and buildings, it wa. re3olved that it should be voluntarily wound up. On 30rh March, the liquidator distributed R•. 850,000 to share-holder..

The appellant (Income-tax Officer) proposed to treat the amounts distributed as dividends and to call upon the liquidators to pay the lax under s. 18(3D) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The liquida- rors contended that the amount was capital appreciation realised by the sale of agricultural lands and buildings and therefore not liable to tax; and that in any event the amounts represented "current profits" of tho year in which it was resolved that the company be wound up and so were not dividends within the meaning of s. 2(6-A)(c). As the appellant did not agree, the liquidators moved the High Court for a writ of prohibi- tion to rmtrain him from raking furth

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 12

All 2,391 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →