HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
SANKAR PRASAD MITRA, K. L. RAY
TARULATA SHYAM - Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - Respondent
Income-Tax Reference 98 Of 1967
Decided On : FEBRUARY 19, 1971
INCOME TAX - Dividend - Advance or loan to shareholder - Repayment before end of accounting year - Whether taxable as dividend - Section 2 (6a) (e), 12 (1b), 16 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
Fact of the Case:
The assessee, a substantial shareholder and managing director of a private company, took a loan of Rs. 2,72,703 from the company during the course of the previous year. Before the end of the previous year, he repaid the entire loan amount to the company. The Income-tax Officer treated the loan amount as dividend under Section 2 (6a) (e) of the Act and grossed it up under Section 16 (2).
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal held that the loan amount was taxable as dividend under Section 2 (6a) (e) of the Act, even though it was repaid before the end of the previous year. The assessee challenged the Tribunal's decision before the High Court.
Issues: Whether the loan amount taken by the assessee from the company and repaid before the end of the previous year was taxable as dividend under Section 2 (6a) (e) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the loan amount was taxable as dividend under Section 2 (6a) (e) of the Act, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Navnit Lal C. Javeri v. K. K. Sen. The Court observed that the liability to be taxed attaches to any amount taken as a loan by a shareholder from the company at the moment the loan is borrowed and it is immaterial whether the loan is repaid before the end of the accounting year or not.
Final Decision: The High Court answered the question referred in the affirmative and in favor of the department.
( 1 ) THE assessee and the original applicant in this reference was one P. C. Shyam who died during the pendency of the reference and his heirs and legal representatives have been substituted in his place as the applicants.
( 2 ) THE assessee was substantial shareholder and managing director of Duiaguri Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. Admittedly, the company is one in which the public are not substantially interested within the meaning of Section 23a of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act" ). The reference concerns the assessment year 1957-58, the corresponding previous year being the calender year 1956. At the commencement of that year there was a credit balance of Rs. 65,246 in the assessee's account in the books of the said company brought forward from the earlier year. Between the 11th January and the 12th November the cash withdrawals by the assessee from the company amounted to Rs. 4,97,442. Deducting therefrom the opening credit balance of Rs. 65,246 and outstanding dividends of Rs. 1,40,000 declared on the 31st December, 1955, in favour of the assessee's major sons transferred to his account and a further dividend of Rs. 19,493 credited to the assessee's account from Kathoni Tea Estate, the total loan or advance taken by the assessee from the company as on the 12th November, 1956, came to Rs. 2,72,703. On the 29th December, 1956, the assessee repaid the company a total sum of Rs. 1,93,000 and on the 31st December, 1956, the last day of the previous year, the assessee's account was credited with another sum of Rs. 80,000 in respect of the dividend due to him and his wife and a further sum of Rs. 29,326 was credited for hypothecation. Thus, before the previous year ended, the assessee's account was credited with an aggregate sum of Rs. 2,99,326 which exceeded the debit balance of Rs. 2,72,703 as on the 12th November, 1956. In effect, the position was that there was no advance or loan due by the assessee to the company at the end of the relevant previous year.
( 3 ) THE Income-tax Officer found that the accumulated profits of the company as on the 1st January, 1956, amounted to Rs. 6,83,005 and he accordingly treated the sum of Rs. 2,72,703 as dividend under Section 2 (6a) (e) of the Act and grossed up that amount under Section 16 (2) and gave credit for tax in accordance with the latter section.
( 4 ) THE assessee's appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was unsuccessful and the assessment of this amount as dividend was confirmed.
( 5 ) ON further appeal by the assessee to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, there was a difference of opinion between the Accountant Member and the Judicial Member. The Accountant Member took the view that the moment a payment was made as envisaged in Section 2 (6a) (e) it became clothed with the character of dividend and no subsequent action of the parties could take it out of mischief of that section. There was no provision in the Act that if any such payment was returned by the shareholder to the company either within the same accounting year or subsequently, it would cease to be governed by the provisions of that section. He was, therefore, of the opinion that the sum of Rs. 2,72,703 was taxable as dividend under Section 2 (6a) (e ).
( 6 ) THE Judicial Member, on the other hand, held that the total income of the assessee during the relevant previous year could be computed and assessed only at the end of that previous year. It could not be computed at interim periods during that previous year. If it was found that although the shareholder had taken a loan from the company during the course of a previous year but had returned the same to the company before the close of that previous year, it could only be said while computing the shareholder's total income at the end of that previous year that no advance or loans from the company of which he was a shareholder stood for his benefit at the time relevant for computation of his total income. Accordi
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.