SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
21st December 1950
H.J. KANIA C.J.I., PATANJALI SASTRI AND S.R. DAS JJ.
Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal - Appellant
Versus
Calcutta Agency Ltd. - Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 59 of 1950.
Advoates appeared
Shri M. C. Setalvad Attorney-General for India (Shri G. N. Joshi, Advocate, with him), instructed by Shri P. A. Mehta, Agent - for Appellant; Shri S. Mitra, Senior Advocate (Shri B. Banerji, Advocate, with him) instructed by Shri Ganpat Rai, Agent - for Respondent.
Held: (1) "This being a claim for exemption of an amount, contended to be an expenditure falling under S. 10(2) (xv) the burden of proving the necessary facts in that connection was on the assessee, it being common ground that the commission was due and had become payable and was, therefore, the business income of the assessee company liable to be taxed in the assessment year. The jurisdiction of the High Court in the matter of income-tax references is an advisory jurisdiction and under the Act the decision of the Tribunal of facts is final, unless it can be successfully assailed on the ground that there was no evidence for the conclusions on facts recorded by the Tribunal. It is, therefore, the duty of the High Court to start by looking at the facts found by the Tribunal and answer the questions of law on that footing. Any departure from this rule of law will convert the High Court into a fact-finding authority, which is not under the advisory jurisdiction. The statement of the case under the rules framed under the Income tax Act is prepared with the knowledge of the parties concerned and they have a full opportunity to apply for any addition or deletion from that statement of the case. If they approved of that statement that is the agreed statement of facts by the parties on which the High Court has to pronounce its judgment.
"Nowhere in the statement of the case prepared by the Tribunal and filed in the High Court, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the payment was made by the assessee company to avoid any danger of public exposure or to save itself from scandal or in order to maintain the Managing agency of the appellant company. The whole conclusion of the High Court is based on the unwarranted assumption of facts which are taken only from the argument of the counsel for the present respondents, before the High Court. The danger of failing to recognize that the jurisdiction of the High Court in these matters is only advisory and the conclusions of the Tribunal on facts are conclusions on which the High Court is to exercise such advisory jurisdiction is illustrated by this case." (per Kania C.J.)
(2) The facts necessary to be established by the respondents to support their claim for exemption under S. 10 (i) (xv) of the Act having not been established at any stage of the proceedings, they are not entitled to the deduction claimed.
Judgment
Kania, C.J.I. :- This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court at Calcutta (Harries C. J. and Chatterjea J.) pronounced on a reference made to it by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under S. 66 (1), Income-tax Act. The relevant facts are these. The respondents are a private limited company which was brought into existence to float various companies including cotton mills. In November 1932 the Basanti Cotton Mills Co., Ltd. was incorporated and the respondents were appointed the managing agents. Their remuneration was fixed at a monthly allowance of Rs. 500 and a commission of 3 per cent. on all gross sales of goods manufactured by the Mills Company. The fixed monthly allowance was liable to be increased in the event of the capital of the company being increased. The details are immaterial. It appears that certain hundis were drawn by one of the directors of the respondent company, acting in the capacity of the managing agents of the Mill Company, in the name of the Mill Company and the same were negotiated to others. The Nath Bank, Ltd., claimed payment of these hundis. The Mill Company repudiated its liability as it appeared from the books of the Mill Company that they had not the use of the sum of Rupees 1,80,000 claimed by the Nath Bank, Ltd., under the hundis. The Nath Bank, Ltd., instituted four suits against the Mill Company, in two of which the respondents were party defendants. The Mill Company was advised to settle the suits and the respondent company entered into an agreement with the Mill Company, the material part of terms of which runs as follows: "Memorandum of Agreement made between the Calcutta Agency, Limited, of the one part and Basanti Cotton Mills, Ltd., of the other part WHEREAS the Nath Bank, Limited, demanded from the Mills the payment of the sum of Rs.1,80,000 and interest thereon AND WHEREAS the said Mills repudiated their liability in respect thereof as it appeared from the books of the said Mills that the said Mills did not have the use of the said sum of Rs.1,80,000 or any part thereof AND WHEREAS the said Nath Bank, Ltd., thereupon instituted four suits in High Court being Suits Nos. 1683, 1720, 1735 and 1757 of 1939 for the said aggregate sum of Rs.1,80.000 and the interest thereon AND WHEREAS the said Mills have been advised to settle the said suits amicably AND WHEREAS the Calcutta Agency, Limited, by its Directors, S. N. Mitter or S. C. Mitter, having been and being still the Managing Agents of the said Mills have undertaken to reimburse the said Mills in respect of the decrees to be made in the said four suits in the manner hereinafter appearing NOW THESE PRESENT WITNESS AND IT IS HEREBY AGREED AND DECLARED. (i) That out of the commission of 3% payable by the said Mills to the said Agency under Regn. 131 of the Articles of Association of the Company, the Company shall have a paramount lien on and deduct and set off a moiety thereof against any payment which the said Mills may make in respect of the said decrees or any of them and/or costs of the said suits. (ii) The said moiety shall be one-half of the commission so payable less such sum as the Directors of the Mills may from time to time allow to be deducted."
2. Under the said agreement, the respondent company paid to the Mill Company Rs. 22,500 made up of Rs.18,107 as principal and Rs. 4,393 as interest in the accounting year. The assessee Company claimed this before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as a deduction permitted under S. 10 (2) (xv), Income-tax Act. The relevant part of that section runs as follows : "10. (1) The tax shall be payable by an assessee under the head Profits and gains of business, profes.sion or vocation in respect of the profits or gains of any business, profession or vocation carried on by him. (2) Such profits or gains shall be computed after making the following allowance, namely : * * * * * (xv) any expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the asse
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.