SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(SC) 531

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha, Indira Banerjee, JJ.
M/S BANGALORE CLUB – Appellant
VERSUS
THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX & ANR. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 3964-71 of 2007
Decided on : 08-09-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Nikhil Nayyar, Gautam Narayan, Asmita Singh, Divyanshu Rai, Adithya Nair, Advocates
For the Respondent:Vikramjit Banerjee, K. Radhakrishnan, Gargi Khanna, Niranjana Singh, Anil Katiyar, Advocates

The main legal point established in the judgment is that Section 21AA of the Wealth Tax Act applies to associations of persons formed with a business or commercial objective to earn income or profits, and the individual shares of the members must be indeterminate or unknown for the provision to be applicable.

Headnote:

Wealth Tax - Bangalore Club - Section 21AA, Wealth Tax Act - Summary of Acts and Sections

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the liability of Bangalore Club to pay wealth tax under the Wealth Tax Act for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1984-85 up to 1990-91. The dispute arose from the assessment order passed by the Wealth Tax Officer, Bangalore, and subsequent appellate orders.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Bangalore Club, being a social club, did not band together for any commercial or business purpose of making income or profits. The court held that the individual shares of the members in the income or assets of the club were determinate, making Section 21AA of the Wealth Tax Act inapplicable to the case.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Bangalore Club was liable to pay wealth tax under the Wealth Tax Act, specifically under Section 21AA, given its nature as a social club.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 21AA of the Wealth Tax Act and held that the provision was enacted to prevent tax evasion by associations of persons formed with a business or commercial objective to earn income or profits. The court emphasized that the provision did not enlarge the field of taxpayers but only plugged evasion. The court also referred to previous judgments and legal principles to support its interpretation.

Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned judgment and the review judgment, allowing the appeals with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT

R.F. Nariman, J.

In the year of grace 1868, a group of British officers banded together to start the Bangalore Club. In the year of grace 1899, one Lt. W.L.S. Churchill was put up on the Club's list of defaulters, which numbered 17, for an amount of Rs.13/- being for an unpaid bill of the Club. The "Bill" never became an "Act". Till date, this amount remains unpaid. Lt. W.L.S. Churchill went on to become Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, Prime Minister of Great Britain. And the Bangalore Club continues its mundane existence, the only excitement being when the tax collector knocks at the door to extract his pound of flesh.

2. Fast forward now from British India to free India and we come to assessment years 1981 -82 and 1984-85 upto 1990-91. The question for determination in these appeals is whether Bangalore Club is liable to pay wealth tax under the Wealth Tax Act. The order of assessment dated 3rd March, 2000, passed by the Wealth Tax Officer, Bangalore, referred to the fact that Bangalore Club is not registered as a society, a trust or a company. The assessing officer, without further ado, "after a careful perusal" of the rules of the Club, came to the conclusion that the rights of the members are not restricted only to user or possession, but definitely as persons to whom the assets of the Club belong. After referring to Section 167A, inserted into the Income Tax Act, 1961, and after referring to Rule 35 of the Club Rules, the assessing officer concluded that the number of members and the date of dissolution are all uncertain and variable and therefore indeterminate, as a result of which the Club was liable to be taxed under the Wealth Tax Act. By a cryptic order dated 25th October, 2000, the CIT (Appeals) dismissed the appeal against the aforesaid order. On the other hand, by a detailed order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore dated 7th May, 2002, the Appellate Tribunal first referred to the Objects of the Bangalore Club, which it described as a "social" Club, as follows:

    "1. To provide for its Members, social, cultural, sporting, recreational and other facilities;

    2. To promote camaraderie and fellowship among its members.

    3. To run the Club for the benefit of its Members from out of the subscriptions and contributions of its member.

    4. To receive donations and gifts without conditions for the betterment of the Club. The General Committee may use its discretion to accept sponsorships for sporting Areas

    5. To undertake measures for social service consequent on natural calamities or disasters, national or local.

    6. To enter into affiliation and reciprocal arrangements with other Clubs of similar standing both in India and abroad.

    7. To do all other acts and things as are conducive or incidental to the attainment of the above objects.

    Provided always and notwithstanding anything hereinafter contained, the aforesaid objects of the Club, shall not be altered, amended, or modified, except, in a General Meeting, for which the unalterable quorum shall not be less than 300 members. Any resolution purporting to alter, amend, or modify the objects of the Club shall not be deemed to have been passed, except by a two thirds majority of the Members present and voting thereon."

3. The Tribunal then set out Rule 35 of the Club Rules, which stated as follows:

    "RULE 35 APPOINTMENT OF LIQUIDATORS:

    If it be resolved to wind up, the Meeting shall appoint a liquidator or liquidators and fix his or their remuneration. The liquidation shall be conducted as nearly as practicable in accordance with the laws governing voluntary liquidation under the Companies Act or any statutory modifications thereto and any surplus assets remaining after all debts and liabilities of the Club have been discharged shall be divided equally amongst the Members of the Club as defined in Rules 6.1(i), 6.1(ii), 6.1 (iii), 6.2(i), 6.2(ii), 6.2(iii), 6.2(vii), 6.2(viii) and 6.2(ix).

4. After setting out Section 21 AA of the Wealth Tax Act, the Tribu


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top