COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PUNJAB vs. INDIAN WOOLLEN TEXTILE MILLS

CIVIL APPEAL No. 96/1963Supreme Court[1964] 5 S.C.R. 42718 November 1963Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: A.K. SARKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, Indian Woollen Textile Mills, claimed exemption under Section 15C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for its newly established undertaking, 'Eldee'. To compute the capital employed in 'Eldee', the assessee sought to include an amount of Rs. 3,21,460 advanced to another concern, 'Castle'. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected this claim. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the inclusion. The Commissioner applied to the Tribunal under Section 66(1) to refer a question of law, which was rejected. Subsequently, a petition under Section 66(2) to direct the Tribunal to state a case was also dismissed by the High Court. The Commissioner appealed this dismissal to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had misdirected itself in law. While the High Court must accept the Tribunal's findings of fact if supported by evidence, the Tribunal's refusal to state a case is not conclusive. The High Court has the power to direct the Tribunal to state a case if it believes a question of law arises or if the Tribunal has misdirected itself. In this instance, the Tribunal's conclusion was based on a single circumstance (non-inclusion of 'Castle's' income) while ignoring other relevant factors considered by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, such as the identical partnership constitution of both businesses. The Tribunal also made an assumption about 'Castle' carrying on business in the previous year. This selective reliance on evidence and disregard for other material points constituted a legal error. Therefore, the High Court was in error in dismissing the petition under Section 66(2). The appeal was allowed, and the proceedings were remanded to the High Court to proceed according to law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in law by ignoring essential evidence when determining if 'Castle' was a separate entity from the assessee's branch 'Eldee' for the purpose of Section 15C of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the Tribunal's decision to include the loan to 'Castle' in the capital computation for 'Eldee' was correct. The Tribunal's reasoning, based on the non-inclusion of 'Castle's' income in the assessee's assessment for 1951-52, was a relevant factor. The High Court correctly upheld this finding as one of fact. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred by relying solely on the non-inclusion of 'Castle's' income in the assessee's assessment for 1951-52, thereby ignoring other crucial evidence considered by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, such as the identical partnership constitution of both undertakings. This constituted a misdirection in law, warranting a reference to the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 15C,Section 66(1),Section 66(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

5 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 427 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PUNJAB v. INDIAN WOOLLEN TEXTILE MILLS (A.K. SARKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.)

Income Tax-Tribunal ignores essential evidence-Refusal to state case-Power of High Court-Income-tax Act, 1922(11 of 1922), ss. !SC & 66(1) (2). 'Eldee', one of the branches of the respondent had advanced a loan to another concern, 'Castle'. The respondent claimed under s. I SC of the Income Tax Act, exemption from tax in respect of 6 % of the capital employed in 'ElcJee' as a newly established undertaking and sought to include in the computation of the capital so employed the amount advanced to 'Castle'. The Income- tax Appellate Tribunal directed inclusion of the amount advanced to 'Castle' in the computation of capital invested for the purpose of s. !SC .. The Commissioner's application under s. 66(1) of the Act to the Tribunal to refer a question which arose out of the order of the Tribunal was rejected and his petition under s.66(2) for an order directing the Tribunal to state the case and refer it to the High Court was also dismissed.

The question in dispute before the Revenue Authorities was whether 'Cas

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 66(1)

All 184 judgments and leading authorities on Section 66(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →