Allowed

The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Poona v. Buldana District Main Cloth Importers Group

Supreme Court6 Mar 19611961 INSC 77 · [1962] 1 S.C.R. 1811961 INSC 77

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Supreme Court assessed whether a cloth importers' group appointed by the Deputy Commissioner under a distribution scheme was an association of persons under the Indian Income-tax Act. Holding that joint business with profits shared per capital contributed suffices, it allowed the appeals against the High Court's contrary ruling.

What did the court decide?

Appeals allowed with costs and one hearing fee; respondent held to be rightly assessed as an association of persons.

What the court decided

The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Poona versus Buldana District… — Income Tax | Supreme Court (1962)

¶1

1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 181

¶2

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

POONA

March 6.

• BULDANA DISTRICT MAIN CLOTH

¶7

IMPORTERS GROUP

¶8

(J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH and

¶9

J. c. SHAH, JJ.)

¶10

Income Tax-Business by group of persons-Profits ascertained and shared on joint basis-If Association of Persons-Indian Income-tax Act, r922 (II of r922), s. J.

¶11

A scheme for the distribution of cloth was evolved by the Deputy Commissioner of the District who appointed a group of persons as sole agents for the import of cloth from Mills and distribntion of the same to retailers. Though for different periods the group was differently constituted, one of the members, firm 'H' remained a common member. The profits of the business were distributed amongst the members of the group in proportion of the capital contributed by them. The Income-tax Officer issued notice under s. 22(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, and on production of books of account assessed the respondent as an 11 Association of Persons". The High Court ¥/as of the opinion, inter alia, that before a group of persons could be called an "Association of Persons" it had to be established that they were in the "nature of partners'', which was not so in the instant case, as the members of the group were appointed by the Deputy Commissioner as importers; the participation of the group could not be held to be of free will but under compulsion and therefore \hey were not an "Association of Persons" within the meaning of s. 3 of the Indian Income-tax Act.

¶12

Held, that where a business is carried on and the profits ·ascertained on a joint basis, and then distributed according to the capital contributed by each member of the group, the group is an "Association of Persons'.' and it makes no difference that the scheme which produced profits was at the instance of or under the control of the Deputy Commissioner or that he had appointed the members constituting the group.

¶13

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North v. Indira Balkrishna, [1960] 3 S.CoR. 5r3, referred to.

¶14

Mohamed Noorullah v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [rg6r] 3 S.C.R. 515, relied on.

¶15

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 41-44of1960.

¶16

182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962]

¶17

r96x _Thc _--.. ~1;:::';:: Poona v. Buldana District MainCloth Iniporters Group	Appealsbyspecial leave fromthejudgmentand orderdatedApril 13, 1956,oftheformerNagpur ~"HighCourt in Misc. Civil Case No. 27of1954, _K. N. Rajagopal Sastri_and_D.Gupta,_fortheappel- !ant. J.M.Thakar,S..N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath, P.L. _Vohra_and_J.B.Dadachanji,_fortherespondent. 1961. March6. TheJudgmentoftheCourt was delivered by
KapurJ.	KAPUR,J.-Theseare four appealsbytheCommis- sionerofIncome-tax in Income-tax Reference made under s. 66-A(2)ofthe Income-tax Act (hereinafter termedthe'Act'). The question for decision is whether therespondent is"anassociationofpersons" within themeaningofs.3ofthe Act. The appeals relate to two Income-tax assessments andtwo Excess ProfitsTaxassessments;theformer for the years 1946-47 and 1947-48 respectively, correspond- ing totheaccounting yearsFebruary1,1945, to September 30, 1945,andOctober1,1945,toAugust 21,1946, thelatterare in regard to chargeable account- ing periods FebruaryI,1945, to September 30, 1945, andOctober22,1945, to March 31, 1946. The decision ofthe Excess ProfitsTaxappeals is consequent upon the decisionofthe Income-tax appeals. The facts may nowbestated:In1945theDeputy CommissionerofBuldana evolved a scheme forthe distributionofclothinhis districtandwith the sanc- tionoftheGovernmentofC.P. appointed four persons, viz.,HajiAhmedHajiAli&Co.,Bhanji Kuwarji, Trimbaklal Tribhovan DasandDeolal Rangulal as sole agents for the importofcloth from mills in various places inIndiaand for distributionofthe same to retailers. TwoofthemHajiAhmedHaji Ali&Co.andBhanji Kuwarji carried on the business as fromFebruary1,1945, to the endofSeptember 1945. The profitsofthebusiness in proportionofthe capital contributedbythese persons were distributed between these two persons. After September 1945 there was a change inthegroupofimportersand some others also joinedthegroup andtheprofits of

r96x
_Thc _--..
~1;:::';::
Poona
v.
Buldana District
MainCloth
Iniporters Group

Appealsbyspecial leave fromthejudgmentand
orderdatedApril 13, 1956,oftheformerNagpur
~"HighCourt in Misc. Civil Case No. 27of1954,
_K. N. Rajagopal Sastri_and_D.Gupta,_fortheappel-
!ant.

J.M.Thakar,S..N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath, P.L.
_Vohra_and_J.B.Dadachanji,_fortherespondent.
1961. March6.
TheJudgmentoftheCourt was
delivered by

KapurJ.

KAPUR,J.-Theseare four appealsbytheCommis-
sionerofIncome-tax in Income-tax Reference made
under s. 66-A(2)ofthe Income-tax Act (hereinafter
termedthe'Act'). The question for decision is whether
therespondent is"anassociationofpersons" within
themeaningofs.3ofthe Act.
The appeals relate to two Income-tax assessments
andtwo Excess ProfitsTaxassessments;theformer for
the years 1946-47 and 1947-48 respectively, correspond-
ing totheaccounting yearsFebruary1,1945, to
September 30, 1945,andOctober1,1945,toAugust
21,1946, thelatterare in regard to chargeable account-
ing periods FebruaryI,1945, to September 30, 1945,
andOctober22,1945, to March 31, 1946. The decision
ofthe Excess ProfitsTaxappeals is consequent upon
the decisionofthe Income-tax appeals.
The facts may nowbestated:In1945theDeputy
CommissionerofBuldana evolved a scheme forthe
distributionofclothinhis districtandwith the sanc-
tionoftheGovernmentofC.P. appointed four persons,
viz.,HajiAhmedHajiAli&Co.,Bhanji Kuwarji,
Trimbaklal Tribhovan DasandDeolal Rangulal as
sole agents for the importofcloth from mills in
various places inIndiaand for distributionofthe
same to retailers.
TwoofthemHajiAhmedHaji
Ali&Co.andBhanji Kuwarji carried on the business
as fromFebruary1,1945, to the endofSeptember
1945. The profitsofthebusiness in proportionofthe
capital contributedbythese persons were distributed
between these two persons.
After September 1945
there was a change inthegroupofimportersand
some others also joinedthegroup andtheprofits of

¶18

l S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 183

•

• the subsequent period were similarly distributed 1961 betwen tdhe members .of the hgroup .as it wabthend The co:;;:issioner constitute in proport10n to t e capita 1 contn ute of Tncome-tax, by each of them. Poona

¶23

of Tncome-tax, Poona v.

¶24

On March 12, 1947, the Income-tax Officer issued a v. notice under s. 22(2) of the Act to the respondent Bulda~a District calling upon it to submit a return of the income of the Main Cloth group for the assessment year 1946-4 7. This was Importm Group served on Haji Ahmed Haji Ali & Co but that firm Kapur J. did not furnish any return contending that there was no privity of contract among members of the group. A notice was then issued under s. 22(4) of the Act and on the production of the books, the Income-tax Officer ascertained the income for the year ending September 1945 and assessed liability for payment of income-tax under s. 23( 4) of the Act. He assessed the respondent as "an association of persons" both for purposes of Income-tax and Excess Profits tax. An application under s. 27 of the Income-tax Act was dismissed by the Income-tax Officer. Similarly for the year 1947-48 a notice was again issued and served on Haji Ahmed Haji Ali & Co. and similarly the group was assessed as an association of persons to Income-tax and it was also assessed to Excess Profits tax for the period October 22, 1945, to March 31, 1946, and an application under s. 27 of the Income-tax Act was dismissed in regard to this period also.

¶25

Appeals were taken against the orders of assessments of Income-tax and Excess Profits tax but they were dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Appeals were then taken to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal but they also were dismissed by an order dated April 18, 1950. An application for making a reference to the High Court was dismissed by the Tribunal but an order was obtained from the High Court under s. 66(2) of the Act and four questions were ordered to be referred to the High Court. The question relevant for the appeals is the following. "Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Buldana District Main Cloth Importers' Group constituted an 'Association of persons' within the meaning of section 4 of the Income-tax Act,

¶26

184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962]

¶27

• I96I 1922, and was liable to be assessed to income-tax n c . . and excess profits tax in that status?" ~~ !>;;::;::""The order of the Tribunal dated April 18, 1950, shows Poona ' that for different periods the group which imported v. the cloth was differently constituted but Haji Ahmed Buldana District Haji Ali & Co. was a common member. The books Main Cloth relating to the business were maintained by Ha.ji Ahmed Importers G'°up_ H aJI ·· Al' 1 & C o. an d every t' 1me t. h ere was a c ange h Ill · Kapur J. the constituents of the group separate set of books was maintained by them and the profits from those enterprises were divided between the various persons who formed the group at the material times. It was contended before the Tribunal that there was no "Association of persons" and that the cloth imported was issued to the importers who sold the cloth on their own account. The Tribunal however found:-

¶28

"The accounts themselves show that the import and distribution of cloth was done on joiut basis. The purchases were on joint account, the sales were on joint account, the profit was first ascertained on the joint account and then distributed according to their agreed share of profits. In our opinion the assessment has been rightly made on the status of an association of persons."

¶29

The High Court, when the matter went to it after the statement of the case by the Tribunal, held that before a group of persons could be called an "association of persons" it had to be established that they were in the nature of partners, i.e., the mem.):Jers of the group of their own volition or free will had joined in a venture with a view to earn profits. As the members of the group were appointed by the Deputy Commissioner as importers their participation could not be held to be of free will but it was under compulsion and therefore they were not an "association of persons" within the meaning of the Act. The High Court referred to and relied upon various cases.to which it is not necessary to make any reference.

¶30

As to what constitutes an association of persons was laid down by this Court in the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North v. Indira Balkrishna (¹ ) and in (I) [1960] 3 5.C.R. 513.

¶31

1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 185

¶32

'9⁶ '

¶33

Mohammad Noorulla v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1) '9⁶ ' decided on January 18, 1961, where the business was The Commissioner carried on as one unit and by the consent of all the of tncome-tox, parties who were heirs of deceased Mohammad Omer Poona Sahib and during the period when an administration v. suit between them was being fought in courts of law. Buldana Dist.ice Main Cloth In the present case the Tribunal has found that the I>nporem Group import and distribution of cloth which was the business carried on by the respondent was done on a joint H apur J. basis. The purchases were joint; so were the sales and the profits were ascertained on a joint basis and then distributed according to the capital contributed by each member of the group. This finding which is one of fact makes the respondent an "association of persons" and it makes no difference that the business was carried on because the Deputy Commissioner of the district had appointed the members constituting the group to import and distribute the cloth in the district.

¶34

The respondent, it is not disputed, worked the scheme which was framed by the Deputy Commissioner and the working of the scheme produced profits and it made no difference that the scheme was at the instance of or under the control of the Deputy Commissioner. Dealing with the argument of similar control Sarkar, J., in Comm·issioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh & Bhopal v. Vyas and Dhotiwala (') observed as follows:-

¶35

•

¶36

"The Tribunal thought that since the scheme was completely under the control of the Deputy Commissioner, the assessees could not be said to have carried on business by working the scheme. We are unable to see that the fact of the control of the Deputy Commissioner can prevent the working of the scheme by the assessees from being a business carried on by them. In our view, it only comes to this that the assessees had agreed to do business in a certain manner."

¶37

We are in respectful agreement with this observation. In our view the respondent was an association of (1) [1961] 3 S.C.R. 515. (2) [1959] Supp. t S.C.R. 39, 43 •. 24

¶38

186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] r96r persons and was rightly so assessed to Income-tax - and Excess Profits Tax. The Commission" Th ] h c ]] d · h of Income-tax, e appea s are t ere1ore a owe wrt costs. One Poona hearing fee. v. Buldana District Appeals allowed. Main Cloth Importers Group Kapur 1

¶39

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MAD HY A PRADESH

¶40

March 7.

¶41

¶42

SETH KHUSHAL CHAND DAGA

¶43

(J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH and J. c. SHAH, JJ.)

¶44

Income Tax-Set-of! of loss-Amount computed not notified in writing-Effect-Income-tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922), ss. 24, 24(3).

¶45

For the accounting year 1941 the assessee's profits from his share in an unregistered firm were set off against his losses in the individual business and the Income Tax Officer determined the loss to be carried forward at Rs. 53,840, but did not notify to the assessee by order in writing the amount of the Joss as computed by him as required by s. 24(3) of the Act. The assessee appealed against the assessment but did not question the amount of the loss which had been determined. In the year 1942-43 the assessee claimed to re-open the question of the Joss to be carried forward stating that it was Rs. 2,u,760. This contention was rejected by the Tribunal. The contention was again raised by the assessee in the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50.

¶46

•

¶47

The question was whether the loss which had been determined and ordered to be carried forward must be deemed to haye become final because no appeal was filed against that determination.

¶48

Held, that computation of the amount of loss under s. 24 of the Income-tax Act does not become final unless the Income-tax Officer notifies by order in writing, the amount of the loss as com. puted by him to the assessee. The assessee was entitled to have

The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Poona v. Buldana District Main Cloth Importers Group

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Poona v. Buldana District Main Cloth Importers Group

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Donald Miranda versus the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City II

Sri Ratnavaramaraja versus Smt. Vimla.

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Andhra Pradesh versus M/S. Bhikaji Dadabhai & Co.

Gurbachan Singh and Others versus Puran Singh and Others

The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madhya Pradesh versus Seth Khushal Chand Daga

Jagannath Agarwala versus State of Orissa