HOSHIARPUR ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SIMLA

CIVIL APPEAL No. 328/1960Supreme Court[1961] 2 S.C.R. 95606 December 1960Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: J.L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH7 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Hoshiarpur Electric Supply Co., an electricity undertaking, received Rs. 12,530 for new service connections granted to customers during the year April 1, 1947, to March 31, 1948. Out of this, Rs. 5,929 was spent on laying service lines and Rs. 1,338 on laying mains. The Income Tax Officer treated the entire Rs. 12,530 as a trading receipt. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner excluded the cost of service lines and mains, treating the balance as taxable income. The Appellate Tribunal agreed. The High Court, on a reference under Section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, substantially upheld the Tribunal's view. The assessee appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in considering the excess of receipts over expenditure for service line installation as a trading receipt. The Court reasoned that while installing service lines was incidental to the assessee's business of distributing electricity, the receipts were not in the course of carrying on the business. Instead, they were for bringing into existence a capital asset of lasting value. The contributions from consumers were essentially for a joint venture, and the service line became an appanage of the assessee's mains, requiring the assessee to maintain it. The Court cited Commissioner of Income-tax v. Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. and Monghyr Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa, to support the view that such contributions are capital receipts. Therefore, the balance remaining after immediate expenditure was not a trading profit but part of a capital receipt. The Court also noted that it was not open to them to decide the ownership of the service lines, as the Tribunal had not made a finding on this mixed question of law and fact, and the High Court had assumed appellate jurisdiction in this regard. The appeal was allowed, and the question was answered in the negative.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee's receipts from consumers for laying service lines (excluding distributing mains) were trading receipts, and if so, whether the profit element therein (service connection receipts minus service connection cost) was taxable income in the assessee's hands? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on the nature of the receipts under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the Indian Electricity Act, 1910). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee contended that the service lines, once installed, became the property of the assessee as an extension of its distributing mains. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, relying on the High Court's judgment, urged that the service lines paid for by consumers did not become the property of the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 66(1),Section 66A(2),Section 4

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

956 SUPREME COURT H,EPORTS [1961] •y6o if they are due from customers for goods supplied or C . . / loans to constituents or transactions of a similar kind. ommsssiofier o I h . b Income-ta• n every case t e test is, was the de t due as an Bombay ' incident to the business; if it is not of that character v. it will be a capita.I loss. Thus a loan advanced by a M /s. Abd«llabhai firm of Solicitors to a company in the formation of Abdulkad•• which it acted as legal adviser is not deductible on its Kapu• J. becoming irrecoverable because that is not a part of the profession of a Solicitor: C. I. R. v. Hagart &: z960 Dece1nber 6. Burn Murdoch (1).

In our opinion the High Court was in error in answering the question in favour of the respondent.

We therefore allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and answer the question against the respondent.

The appellant will have his costs in this Court and in the High Court.

Appeal allowed. HOSHIARPUR ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. v. • COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SIMLA (J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH and J.C. SHAH, JJ.)

Income Tax-Assessee's receipts for installing new electricity installat

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 →