Kantilal Manilal & Ors Vs. The
Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay [1960] INSC 213 (22 November 1960)
SHAH, J.C.
KAPUR, J.L.
HIDAYATULLAH, M.
CITATION: 1961 AIR 1038 1961 SCR (2) 584
ACT:
Income-tax--Distribution of new shares at
half the market value--If amounts to distribution of
dividend--Assessment--Reopening of--The Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of
1922), SS. 2(6A) (a), 66(1).
HEADNOTE:
The appellants were shareholders of a company
known as Navjivan Mills Ltd. which held a large number of shares of the Bank of
India. The Bank with the object of increasing their share capital offered some
more shares to the Mills for a price including premium which was about half the
market value. The Mills purchased a small number of the shares so offered with
their own funds and distributed their right to acquire the remaining shares to
their shareholders in the proportion of two shares of the Bank for one share
held by them. The assessment of the appellant was reopened by the Income Tax Officer
under s. 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act on the footing that the release of the
right to the shares of the Bank of India amounted to distribution of dividend.
Appeals against the order of the Income Tax Officer having failed, the High
Court at the instance of the appellants framed the following question:-
"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the distribution of
the right to apply for the shares of the Bank of India by Navjivan Mills Ltd.
in favour of the assessees amounted to a distribution of "dividend"?
585 The High Court answered the question in the affirmative. On appeal with a
certificate of the High Court, Held, that the view taken by the High Court was
correct.
The distribution to the shareholders of the
Mills of the right to obtain two shares of the Bank of India for each share
held by them at half the market value amounted to distribution of
"dividend" which was liable to be taxed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 364 of 1957.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated
February 22, 1956, of the former Bombay High Court in I.T.R. No. 31/1955.
N. A. Palkhivala and I..N. Shroff, for the
Appellants.
A. N. Kripal and D. Gupta, for the
Respondent.
1960. November 22. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by SHAH, J.-This is an appeal by seven appellants with leave
granted by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay certifying that it involves a
question of importance.
The appellants held 570 out of a total issue
of 800 shares of the Navjivan Mills Ltd., Kalol, a public limited company-
hereinafter referred to as the Mills. Between the years 1943-47, the Mills
purchased 5,000 shares of the Bank of India Ltd. At an extraordinary general
meeting of the shareholders of the Bank of India held on May 6, 1948, a
resolution was passed increasing the share capital of the Bank and for that
purpose offering new shares to the existing shareholders in the proportion of
one new share for every three shares held by the shareholders. The face value
of the new shares was to be Rs. 50, but the shares were issued at a premium of
Rs. 50. The shareholders had to pay Rs. 100 for each new share. The Mills as
the holder of 5,000 shares became entitled to receive 1,6662 shares of the Bank
of India at the rate of Rs. 100 per share. The Bank of India communicated its
resolution by letter dated May 25, 1948 and enclosed therewith three forms,
form A for acceptance, form 586 B for renunciation and 'form C which may
compendiously be called a form for allotment to nominees. On receiving the
circular letter, the Directors of the Mills passed the following resolution:
"Resolved that the company having a
holding of 5,000 ordinary shares in the capital of the Bank of India Ltd.
having now received an intimation from the
said Bank that this company is entitled to get 1,6662 more ordinary shares on
payment of Rs. 50 as capital and Rs. 50 as premium per each share and it is
considered proper to invest in the said issue of the said Bank the funds of
this company to the extent of 66 shares only and to distribute the right of
this company to the remaining 1,600 shares of the said issue amongst the
shareholders of this company in the proportion of the shares held by them in
this company. IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the funds of this company may be
invested in the 66 shares out of 1,666 shares offered by 'the Bank of India
Ltd., and the right to the remaining 1,600 shares is hereby distributed among
800 shares of this company in the proportion of right to two shares of the Bank
per one ordinary share held in this company.
The Managing Agents may take steps to
intimate the shareholders to exercise the right if they like to do so."
Accordingly, the Mills exercised the right to take over only 66 shares out of
the shares offered and resolved that the right to the remaining 1,600 shares be
distributed amongst its 800 share holders. The seven appellants as holders of
570 shares of the Mills became entitled to 1,140 shares of the Bank of India.
The appellants agreed to the allotment of these shares and ultimately
transferred them to a private company--Jesinghbai Investment Co.' Ltd.
The assessment of the seven appellants and of
other shareholders of the Mills was reopened under s. 34(1)(a) of the Indian
Income Tax Act by the Income Tax Officer on the footing that, the release by
the Mills of the shares of the Bank of India amounted to a distribution of
"dividend" and the value of the right released in favour of the
shareholders though taxable 587 under s. 12 of the Act, had escaped tax. The
order of the Income Tax Officer reassessing the income of the seven appellants
was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and by the
Appellate Tribunal. At the instance of the appellants, the i following question
was submitted by the Tribunal to the High Court at Bombay under s. 66(1) of the
Income Tax Act:
"Whether on the facts and circumstances
of the case the distribution of the right to apply for the shares of the Bank
of India by Navjivan Mills Ltd. in favour of the assessees amounted to a
distribution of "dividend" within the meaning of s. 2(6A) of the
Indian Income Tax Act." The High Court reframed the question as follows:
"Whether on the facts and circumstances
of the case, the distribution of the right to apply for the shares of the Bank
of India by Navjivan Mills Ltd., in favour of the assessees amounted to a
distribution of "dividend"?" and answered it in the affirmative.
The High Court observed that the definition
of "dividend" in s. 2(6A) was an inclusive and not an exhaustive
definition, and even if the distribution of the right to the shares of the Bank
of India could not be regarded as dividend within the extended meaning of that
expression in s. 2(6A), it was still dividend within the ordinary meaning of
that expression and was taxable as income in the hands of the appellants.
Counsel for the appellants contended that the
High Court was not justified, having regard to the form of the question which
expressly related to the distribution of the right to the Bank of India shares
being dividend within the meaning of the definition in s. 2(6A) of the Income
Tax Act, in enlarging the scope of the question and in answering it in the
light of its ordinary meaning. There is no substance in this contention.
"Dividend" is defined in s. 2(6A) as inclusive of various items and
exclusive of certain others which it is not necessary to set out for the
purpose of this appeal. "Dividend" in its ordinary meaning is a 588
distributive share of the profits or income of a company given to its
shareholders. When the Legislature by s. 2(6A) sought to define the expression
"dividend" it added to the normal meaning of the expression several
other categories of receipts which may not otherwise be included therein. By
the definition in s. 2(6A), "dividend" means dividend as normally understood
and includes in its connotation several other receipts set out in the
definition. The Tribunal had referred the question whether the distribution of
the right to apply for the Bank of India shares amounted to distribution of
dividend within the meaning of s. 2(6A) and in answering that question, the
High Court had to take into account both the normal and the extended meaning of
that expression. In the question framed by the Tribunal, there is nothing to
indicate that the High Court was called upon to advise on the question whether
the receipts by the appellants amounted to dividend only within the extended
definition of that expression in s. 2(6A).
It was also urged that in nominating its
shareholders to exercise the option to purchase the new issue of the Bank of
India, the Mills did not distribute any dividend. The Mills were, it is true,
not obliged to accept the offer made by the Bank of India, however advantageous
it might have been to the Mills to accept the offer: it was open to the Mills to
renounce the offer. The Mills had three options, (1) to accept the shares, (2)
to decline to accept the shares, or (3) to surrender them in favour of its
nominee. It is undisputed that when the shares were offered by the Bank of
India to its shareholders, the right to apply for the shares had a market value
of Rs. 100 per share. The face value of the new share was Rs. 50 but the
shareholders had to pay a premium of Rs. 50, thus making a total payment of Rs.
100 for acquiring the new share. The new shares were quoted in the market at
more than Rs. 200: and the difference between the amount payable for acquiring
the shares under the right offered by the Bank of India and the market
quotation of the shares was indisputably the value of the right. The Mills could
not be compelled to obtain 589 this benefit if it did not desire to do so: it
could accept the shares or decline to accept those shares or exercise the
option of surrendering them in favour of its nominees. This last option could
be exercised by nominating the persons who were to take over the shares and
that is what the Mills did.
The Mills requested the Bank of India to
allot the shares to its nominees, and the request for allotment to its nominees
amounted to transfer of the right. By its resolution, the Mills in truth
transferred a right of the value of Rs. 200 for each share held by its
shareholders. This was manifestly not distribution of the capital of the Mills.
It was open to the Mills to sell the right to the shares of the Bank of India
in the market, and to distribute the proceeds among the shareholders. Such a
distribution would undoubtedly have been distribution of dividend. If instead
of selling the right in the market and then distributing the proceeds, the
Mills directly transferred the right, the benefit in the hands of the
shareholders was still dividend.
Dividend need not be distributed in money; it
may be distributed by delivery of property or right having monetary value. The
resolution, it is true, did not purport to distribute the right amongst the
shareholders as dividend.
It did not also take the form of a resolution
for distribution of dividend; it took the form of distribution of a right which
had a monetary value. But by the form of the resolution sanctioning the
distribution, the true character of the resolution could not be altered. We are
therefore of the view that the High Court was right in holding that the
distribution of the right to apply for and obtain two shares of the Bank of
India (at half their market value) for each share held by the shareholders of
the Mills amounted to distribution of dividend.
The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Back
