SENAIRAM DOONGARMALL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ASSAM

CIVIL APPEAL No. 535/1958Supreme Court[1962] 1 S.C.R. 25713 March 1961Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: J.L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH22 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family, owned a tea estate in Assam. In 1942, military authorities requisitioned the factory buildings and related premises under the Defence of India Rules, leaving the tea garden with the assessee. This requisition continued until 1945, during which period the assessee's tea growing and manufacturing business was entirely stopped. The military authorities paid compensation for the requisitioned period: Rs. 2,22,080 for 1944 (assessment year 1945-46) and Rs. 2,46,794 for 1945 (assessment year 1946-47). These sums included amounts for repairs. The Income-tax Officers treated portions of these amounts as revenue receipts. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was divided, leading to a third member agreeing with the Accountant Member. The High Court answered two reference questions against the assessee.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the compensation amounts paid by the military authorities were not revenue receipts taxable under Section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Court reasoned that the compensation was received not for the loss of profits of a business that was ongoing, but for the injury to the business as a whole, which was completely stopped due to the requisition. The entire structure of the business was affected to such an extent that no business was carried on during the period. Therefore, the compensation could not bear the character of profits of a business. The Court applied the principle from Income-tax Commissioner v. Shaw Wallace & Co. and observations from Newcastle Breweries case, distinguishing between compensation for the destruction of a trade and profits from a going concern. Since the compensation was not profit, Rules 23 and 24 of the Indian Income-tax Rules were not applicable. The Court did not express an opinion on whether the payment could be treated as income from property under Section 9, as this was not considered by the lower authorities. The appeal was allowed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the sums of Rs. 2,12,080 and Rs. 2,31,563 paid by the Government to the assessee in 1945 and 1946 respectively (exclusive of sums for building repairs) were revenue receipts comprising any element of income, under Section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922? Assessee's contention: The compensation received was not for loss of profits but for injury to the business as a whole, as the business was stopped. Therefore, it was a capital receipt and not taxable income. Revenue's contention: The compensation was for the use and occupation of the premises and represented revenue receipts, taxable under Section 10. 2. If the sums were revenue receipts, whether the whole of the said sums less expenses incurred constituted agricultural income exempt from tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922? Assessee's contention: If deemed revenue, it should be treated as agricultural income. Revenue's contention: Not explicitly recorded, but impliedly that it was taxable income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10,Section 9,Section 66(A)(2),Section 66(1),Section 35,Section 23(4),Section 23(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 257 SENAIRAM DOONGARMALL · v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ASSAM (J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH and J. c. SHAH, JJ.)

Income Tax-Capital or Revenue-Tea estate-Requisition of factories and buildings-Stoppage of tea business-Compcnsation- Nature of-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (II of 1922), s. IO.

The assessee, a Hindu undivided family, owned a tea estate in Assam comprising a tea garden, factories, labour quarters, staff quarters etc. On February 27, 1942, the military autho- rities requisitioned all the factory buildings etc., under the Defence of India Rul~s but the tea garden, however, was left in the possession of the assessee. The possession of the military continued till the yearr945 and during that period, though the assessee looked after its tea garden, its business as tea-growers and tea-manufacturers could not be continued. Under the Defence of India Rules, the military authorities paid the assessee as compensation a sum of Rs. 2,22,080 for the year 1944· which included Rs. 10,000 for repairs to quarters for labourers, and a sum of Rs. 2,46,794 for the year 1945, which included Rs. 15,231 for repairs. For the assessment year

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 10

All 582 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →