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

1980 Supreme(Mad) 104

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. RAMANUJAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SETHURAMAN
Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu-Iv - Appellant
Versus
Southern Transports - Respondent
Case No : Tax Case Nos. 598 and 599 of 1975
Decided On : 26 February 1980

Advocates Appeared:A. N. Rangaswamy, Advocate.

The actual capital gain, and not a fictional gain, is taxable under s. 12B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Headnote:

INCOME TAX - Capital gains - Transfer of buses and route permits - Consideration received by assessee - Whether actual consideration or fictional gain - Applicability of s. 12B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Fact of the Case:

The assessee, a registered firm, sold 11 buses and 9 route permits to a new company for a total consideration of Rs. 2,60,000. The ITO determined the capital gains at Rs. 1,58,572 by taking the written down value of the buses and adding development rebate and initial depreciation. The AAC deleted the capital gains on the transfer of buses and determined the capital gains on the transfer of route permits at Rs. 47,616. On appeal, the Tribunal held that the consideration of Rs. 2,60,000 disclosed by the assessee should be taken to be the actual consideration received and that there was no capital gain.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the revenue had not established that the assessee had received a consideration higher than Rs. 2,60,000 for the transfer of buses with route permits and that there was no understatement of consideration. The court also held that the revenue was not justified in invoking s. 12B of the Act as the actual capital gain had not been proved or established.

Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of s. 12B would apply to the facts of the case? 2. Whether the assessee was liable to tax on the capital gains arising out of the transfer of buses and route permits on the ground that under-statement of consideration has not been proved by the department?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that s. 12B of the Act authorises the revenue to bring to charge only the real capital gains and not fictional gains. The court also held that the burden of proving that the transfer of buses by the assessee to the limited company was effected with the object of avoidance or reduction of tax on capital gains, not having been discharged by the revenue, the consideration of Rs. 2,60,000 disclosed by the assessee should be taken to be the actual consideration received by the assessee.

Final Decision: The court answered both the questions in the affirmative and against the revenue. There was no order as to costs.

Judgment :-

RAMANUJAM J.

At the instance of the revenue, the following two questions have been referred to us for our decision under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 :

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held by the Tribunal that the provisions of s. 12B would not apply to the facts of the case ?

2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not liable to tax on the capital gains of Rs. 95, 158 arising out of the transfer of buses and Rs. 47, 616 arising out of the route permits on the ground that under-statement of consideration has not been proved by the department ?" *

The assessee in this case is a registered firm by name Messrs. Southern Transports, Madurai. During the assessment year 1961-62, the said firm sold 9 route buses and 2 spare buses to a new company known as Messrs. Southern & Rajamani Transports (P.). Ltd., Madurai, for a total consideration of Rs. 2, 60, 000. Since the written down value of the said 11 buses as on September 1, 1959, was Rs. 2, 67, 359, which was higher than the actual value of the buses, the ITO subjected the transaction of sale to a detailed scrutiny. He found that out of the 11 buses transferred, 6 of them had been purchased in 1956, 1957 and 1958, and that, therefore, the sale price of the buses sold appeared to be too low. Having regard to the fact that the new company, to which the buses were sold, is one in which the partners of Southern Transports were shareholders, the ITO felt that the sale value of Rs. 2, 60, 000 did not represent the actual sale prince paid for the route business as well as the route permits. He, therefore, did not accept Rs. 2, 60, 000 as the real sale price but fixed the fair market value of the buses at Rs. 3, 55, 158 by taking the written down value of the 11 buses as on September 1, 1959, and adding thereto development rebate and the initial depreciation allowed in respect of the said buses. He thus determined the capital gains at Rs. 95, 158 (Rs. 3, 55, 158 minus Rs. 2, 60, 000). The ITO also felt that the said sum of Rs. 2, 60, 000 did not include the sale value of the 9 route permits and having regard to the earning capacity of a bus, he determined the capitalised route value at 2 times the average profit and determined the value of the route permits at Rs. 90, 234 and after deducting the value of the route permits as on January 1, 1954, which he fixed at Rs. 26, 820 he determined the net capital gain in respect of the route permits at Rs. 63, 414. Thus, the assessing authority determined the total capital gains at Rs. 1, 58, 572.Aggrieved against the said computation of the capital gains by the assessing authority, the assessee went up in appeal. The AAC, however, held that the market value of the buses should be taken as Rs. 2, 60, 000 and hence there will be no capital gain on the sale of the buses and in that view he deleted the capital gains of Rs. 95, 185 computed by the ITO for the transfer of buses. With regard to the computation of capital gains on the transfer route permits, he held that the partners' remuneration should be deducted from the profits of the firm and the route value should be taken at 11/2 times the average profits as against 2 times adopted by the ITO. On this basis, he determined the capital gains on the transfer of the bus routes at Rs. 47, 616 as against Rs. 63, 414 computed by the ITO.

Aggrieved against the deletion of the capital gains of Rs. 95, 158 on the transfer of buses, the revenue went up in appeal to the Tribunal Aggrieved against the order of the AAC computing the capital gains on the transfer of the route permits at Rs. 47, 616, the assessee went up in appeal to the Tribunal. Both the appeals were disposed of by a common judgment by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was of the view that as s. 12B(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, authorises the revenue to bring to charge only the real capital gains an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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