COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS vs. K. R. M. T. T. THIAGARAJA CHETTY & CO.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 131/1952Supreme Court[1954] 1 S.C.R. 25814 October 1953Bench: 5 JudgesAuthor: M. PATANJALI SASTRI, SUDHI RANJAN DAS, VIVIAN BOSE, GHULAM HASAN, NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI11 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting. Therefore, the commission accrued to the assessee when it was credited in the accounts, irrespective of whether it was actually received or not. The subsequent action of transferring the amount to a suspense account pending settlement of a dispute between the company and the assessee did not affect the accrual of income. The Court further held that the fact that the profits of the business could only be computed after March 31, 1942, was immaterial, as the quantification of the commission is not a condition precedent to its accrual. The profits of the company accrued on March 31, 1942, and by parity of reasoning, the commission also accrued on the same date. The Court allowed the appeals, upholding the view that the income was assessable. The operative direction was to allow the appeals, meaning the assessment of the commission was upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a firm acting as managing agents for Shri Meenakshi Mills Ltd., was entitled to commission on profits. For the assessment year 1942-43, the commission due was Rs. 2,26,850-5-0. The firm did not include this in its return, claiming it was not actually received by March 31, 1942. This was based on a company resolution to keep the amount in suspense due to a debt owed by the firm to the company. The Income-tax Officer and Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the firm followed the mercantile method, and the income had accrued and was assessable. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal disagreed, holding the income had not accrued and should be excluded from taxation. The Commissioner appealed to the High Court, which referred two questions to it. The High Court's judgment was split on one question, with one judge's opinion prevailing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there is any material for the Tribunal's finding that the assessee (respondent) was being assessed on a cash basis in prior years? (Question of fact) - Assessee's contention: Not recorded. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's finding that the sum of Rs. 2,26,850 could not be assessed for the assessment year 1942-43 is correct in law? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on Section 4(1)(b)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) - Assessee's contention: The commission could not be assessed as it was not actually received in the accounting year and was kept in suspense pending settlement of disputes. The computation of profits, necessary for quantifying the commission, could only be done after March 31, 1942, implying the commission had not accrued. - Revenue's contention: The assessee followed the mercantile method of accounting. The income had accrued by virtue of being credited in the accounts, and the subsequent transfer to a suspense account did not alter its assessable nature. The quantification of profits after the year-end was not a condition precedent to the accrual of commission.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 4(1)(b),Section 13

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1953 Oct. U. 258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1954] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS v. K. R. M. T. T. THIAGARAJA CHETTY & CO. [PATANJALrSASTRI C.J., S. R. DAs, VIVIAN BosE, GHULAM HASAN and BHAGWATI JJ.] India,n focome-tax Act (XI of 1922), ss. 4 (1) (b), 13-Cominis- sion agency-Accou,nts kept on. mercantile system--Oomniission, credited to aae1it and debited as b1tsi-ness expendit·ure, but withheld and car1·i- ed Over snbseqnently to sn.~pense acconnt pending dispntes-Whether i1nconie ha.s a.cc1·1ted-Oo1npu,ta.tion of profits, ~ohether Cj)ndition prececlent to accrnal. \Vhere, under the terms of a managing agency agree1nent, the assesses firm who· wera the 1nanaging agents of a company \Vere entitled to a certain percentage of the profits as their commission and in the books of the company maintained by the firm a su1n of Rs. 2,26,850 odd was shown as co1nmission due to the fir1n on the profits for the year 1.941-42 and the said sum was also debited as an item of business expenditure and credited to the inn.naging agents' commission account, but the aforesaid sum was ·subsequently carried to a suspense account by a resolution of the company as a result of a req

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 13

All 783 judgments and leading authorities on Section 13 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →