1973 Supreme(Mad) 148
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. S. Hegde, P. Jaganmohan Reddy and H. R. Khanna, JJ.
Commissioner of Income-tax
Versus
Madurai Mills Co., Ltd.
C.A. No. 1394 of 1970.
Decided On : 09 March 1973
S. C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate (P. L. Juneja and R. N. Sachthey, Advocate, with him), for Appellant.
S. T. Desai, Senior Advocate (T. A. Ramachandran, Advocate, with him), for Respondent.
The distribution of assets by a liquidator on the voluntary winding up of a company does not constitute a sale, transfer, or exchange for the purpose of subsection (1) of section 12-B of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
Headnote:
CAPITAL GAINS - DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS BY LIQUIDATOR - NOT SALE, EXCHANGE, RELINQUISHMENT OR TRANSFER - NO CAPITAL GAINS TAX LIABILITY - SECTION 12-B(1), INCOME-TAX ACT, 1922.
Fact of the Case:
The assessee-company held shares in three companies that went into voluntary liquidation. The liquidators distributed cash and assets to the assessee-company in the relevant year of account. The Revenue treated the distribution as a capital gain under section 12-B(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the distribution of assets by the liquidators did not amount to a sale, exchange, relinquishment, or transfer and therefore did not attract capital gains tax under section 12-B(1) of the Act.
Issues: Whether the distribution of assets by the liquidators to the assessee-company amounted to a sale, exchange, relinquishment, or transfer, thereby attracting capital gains tax under section 12-B(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the distribution of assets by the liquidators did not constitute a sale, transfer, or exchange for the purpose of subsection (1) of section 12-B of the Act. The Court reasoned that the liquidator's act in distributing the assets did not create new rights but merely recognized existing legal rights. The Court also distinguished the case of James Anderson v. Commissioner of Income-tax, where the assessee had sold shares and securities belonging to a deceased person for the purpose of distributing the assets amongst the legatees, holding that in the present case there was no sale or receipt of price but only a distribution of assets.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, upholding the High Court's decision that the distribution of assets by the liquidators did not attract capital gains tax under section 12-B(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 95,944 is liable to tax under section 12-B (2) ?”
2. The matter relates to assessment year 1961-62. The assessee is a public limited company carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of yarn. The assessee held shares in the following companies as under:
(1) Indian Mills Supply Company (Private) Limited, 2,670 shares of the face value of Rs. 100.
(2) Harveys (Private) Limited, 1,000 shares of the face value of Rs 100.
(3) Pandyan Weaving Mills (Private) Limited, 1,800 shares of the face value of Rupees 100.
3. The above three companies went into voluntary liquidation in December 1959. In the course of the liquidation proceedings, the liquidators made distribution in the relevant year of account and the assessee-company got cash or assets in lieu of cash of the amount of Rs. 4,57,858, Rs. 1,41,739 and Rs. 1,83,175 in respect of Indian Mills Company (Private) Limited, Harveys (Private) Limited and Pandyan Weaving Mills (Private) Limited respectively. The Revenue took the view that by reason of the distribution of assets of the three private companies under liquidation by the liquidators, there had been a capital gain of Rs. 96,735,85 in respect of Indian Mills Supply Company (Private) Limited and Rs. 41,168.88 in respect of Harveys (Private) Limited making a total of Rs. 1,37,904.73. Out of that, loss amounting to Rs. 41,960.56 in respect of Pandyan Weaving Mills (Private Limited was deducted, leaving a balance of Rs. 95,944.00. The assessee-company at first showed the sum of Rs. 95,944.00 as capital gains but subsequently it filed a statement showing a loss of Rs. 59,104 on the basis that the cost of shares distributed by the liquidators should be taken at the figure at which they had been acquired by the companies which distributed the shares. The Income-tax Officer assessed the assessee-company to capital gain at the sum of Rs. 95,944. Aggrieved by the order of the Income-tax Officer the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and on being unsuccessful there, filed a further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The main contention which was raised on behalf of the assessee was that the transaction in question involved no sale, exchange, relinquishment or transfer and as such, the amount in question was not capital gain under section 12-B of the Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was of the view that the surplus arose out of the exchange of shares held by the assessee-company in the three companies and therefore the surplus ought to be brought to tax. The Tribunal held that there was an exchange or transfer of shares and assets in question. The transaction, according to the Tribunal, could also be viewed as a relinquishment. The assessee was consequently held liable to pay tax on the sum of Rs. 95,944 under section 12-B of the Act. The question reproduced above was thereafter, on the application of the assessee, referred to the High Court.
4. The High Court while answering the question in the negative held that when a liquidator distributes the assets of a company which has gone into voluntary liquidation, he is performing a legal function and there is no element of sale, transfer, exchange or relinquishment involved in such distribution. The judgment of the High Court is reported in Madura Mills Co., Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras1.
5. Before dealing further, we may men-tion that capital gains were charged for the first time by the Income-tax and Excess Profit Tax (Amendment) Act, (XXII of 1947) which inserted section 126 in