THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17 MUMBAI vs. ALKA BHOSLE

PDF · subscribers
ITXA/2656/2009HC BombayHCBM02021190200909 June 2010Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J.P. DEVADHAR,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the conditions stipulated in clauses (a), (b), and (c) of Section 94(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are intended to be cumulative. The reasoning was based on the plain reading of the subsection, which outlines three distinct requirements that must all be fulfilled for the provision to apply. The Tribunal noted that the sale of units in this case took place after the expiry of three months from the record date, thus failing to satisfy the second condition. This interpretation was supported by the Memorandum explaining the Finance Bill of 2001, which introduced the sub-section, and a judgment of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Shambhu Mercantile Ltd. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed as lacking merit and not raising a substantial question of law.

What were the facts?

The appeal by the Revenue concerns Assessment Year 2004-05. The dispute revolves around the interpretation of Section 94(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee purchased units within three months prior to the record date but sold them more than three months after the record date. The Revenue contended that Section 94(7) would apply because the units were acquired within the specified period, even though they were sold later. The assessee's case involved a sale of units beyond the three-month period post the record date.

What were the issues?

1. Whether clauses (a), (b), and (c) of Section 94(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are to be satisfied independently or cumulatively. Assessee's Contention: The assessee implicitly argued that since the sale of units occurred beyond the three-month period after the record date, the conditions of Section 94(7) were not met. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that Section 94(7) would apply because the units were acquired within three months of the record date, irrespective of the sale happening beyond the three-month period after the record date. The Revenue's argument hinges on the interpretation that only the acquisition clause needed to be satisfied.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 94(7),Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2656 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax,­17. ...Appellant.                         Vs. Smt.Alka Bhosle. ...Respondent.                                 .... Mr.D.K.Kamwal  for the Appellant. Mr.Atul K.Jasani with Mr.P.C.Tripathi for the Respondent.                                 .....                                 CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND                 J.P.DEVADHAR,  JJ.                                               June 9, 2010.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.) : The following question of law has been formulated in the appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ITAT was right in holding that clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 94(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are to be satisfied independently or cumulatively.”

2.

Section 94(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it stood at the material time, reads as follows: “(7) Where­ (a) any person buys or acquires any securities or unit within a period of three months prior to the record date; CNR No : HCBM020211902009 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 (b) such person sells or transfers such securities or unit within a period of three months after such date; (c) the dividend or income on such securities or unit received or receivable by such person is exempt, then, the loss, if any, arising to him on account of such purchase and sale of securities or unit, to the extent such loss does not exceed the amount of dividend or income received or receivable on such securities or unit, shall be ignored   for   the   purposes   of   computing   his   income chargeable to tax.”

3.

The dispute in the present case relates to Assessment Year 2004­05. The question that falls for consideration is as to whether the conditions spelt out in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub­ section (7) are cumulative.  In the present case, the assessee had purchased certain units within a period of less than three months from the record date, but admittedly, the units were sold beyond a period of three months from the record date.   The contention of the Revenue is that though the units were, as a matter of fact, sold beyond a period of three months of the record date, the provisions of Section 94(7) would apply since they were acquired within a period of three months of the record date.

4.

There is no merit in the submission.   Sub­section 7 of Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Section   94   spelt   out   three   requirements;   these   being   (i)   The purchase or acquisition of any of the securities or units should take place within a period of three months prior to the record date; (ii) The sale or transfer should take place within a period of three months after the record date; and (iii) The dividend or income received or receivable should be exempt.  In the event that these three conditions are fulfilled, the loss, if any, arising from the purchase or sale of securities or units, has to be ignored for the purpose of computing the income chargeable to tax, to the extent such   loss   does   not   exceed   the   amount   of   dividend   or   income received or receivable.  Ex­facie, all the three conditions that are spelt out in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sub­section 7, must be fulfilled before the consequence that is envisaged in the section comes into force.   In the present case, the sale of the units has taken place after the expiry of a period of three months from the record   date.     Hence,   the   second   condition   spelt   out   for   the applicability of sub­section 7 would not come into force.

5.

The   Memorandum   explaining   the   provisions   of   the Finance Bill of 2001 by which sub­section 7 was inserted, would Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 make   it   clear   that   the   requirements   were   intended   to   be cumulative.  The Memorandum inter alia states as follows: “It is proposed to insert a new sub­section (7) in the said section   to   provide   that   where   any   person   buys   or acquires   securities   or   unit   within   a   period   of   three months prior to the record date fixed for declaration of dividend   or   distribution   of   income   in   respect   of   the securities or unit, and sells or transfers the same within a period of three months after such record date,  and  the dividend   or  income   received   or  receivable  is   exempt, then, the loss, if any, arising from such purchase or sale shall be ignored to the extent such loss does not exceed the   amount   of   such   dividend   or   income,   in   the computation of the income, chargeable to tax, of such person.” (emphasis supplied).

6.

By the Finance (No.2) Bill of 2004, the provisions of sub clause (b) were amended so as to provide a period of nine months for the transfer or sale of a unit.  The Memorandum explaining the provisions of Finance (No.2) Bill of 2004 provide as follows: “It   has   been   noticed   that   the   condition specified in sub­section (7) of section 94 requiring an investor to hold units for at least ninety days after the record date did not provide the desired effect.  In order to   provide   further   deterrence   to   tax­avoidance,   it   is necessary to provide for a longer period of holding of units after a record date. It is accordingly proposed to amend the said sub­section so as to provide that where any person buys or acquires any unit within a period of three months prior to the record date and sells or transfers the same Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 within a period of nine months after such record date, and the dividend or income received or receivable  is exempt, then, the loss, if any, arising from such sale and purchase shall be ignored to the extent such loss does not exceed the amount of such income or dividend, in computation of the income, chargeable to tax, of such person.”

7.

From   the   Memoranda   explaining   respectively   the Finance Bills of 2001 and 2004, it is evident that the conditions prescribed in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sub­section 7 are intended Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

More judgments on Section 94(7)

All 130 judgments and leading authorities on Section 94(7) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →