Commissioner of Income-Tax, West
Bengal II Vs. Rajasthan Mines Ltd., Calcutta [1970] INSC 128 (5 May 1970)
05/05/1970 HEGDE, K.S.
HEGDE, K.S.
SHAH, J.C.
GROVER, A.N.
CITATION: 1970 AIR 1560 1971 SCR (1) 517 1970
SCC (2) 158
CITATOR INFO:
RF 1973 SC2330 (12) RF 1986 SC1691 (12)
ACT:
Indian Income-tax Act, (11 of 1922)-Assessee
purchases proprietary rights with arrears of rent and royalty-Whether receipt
of the arrears taxable-Assessee sells-Profit if taxable-finding of Tribunal, if
open to review by High Court.
HEADNOTE:
The assessee-company purchased the
proprietory interests in lands rich in coal and fireclay. The deeds assigned to
the assessee the vendors right to receive arrears of rent and royalty in
pursuance of the agreement between the vendors and third parties. Later the
assesses sold its right since it could not win the mines for want of finances.
The Income-tax Officerassessed the entire arrears of rent, and royalty to tax
in the assessee's hands as revenue receipts.
He also assessed the profit of the sale to
tax as a business transaction. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and the
Tribunal agreed with the orders. The Tribunal found that the assessee was
heavily indebted to the vendor but there was no evidence that the payment of
the amount was pressed for; the memorandum of association of the assessee
empowered it to acquire, sell and dispose of and deal with mines and mining
properties; as a major part of the land purchased by the assessee was in
possession of other mining companies, it was pot possible for the assessee to
undertake any large scale and profitable mining operations; the assessee sold
the lands purchased by it for a profit; and the properties purchased were sold
very soon after they were purchased.
But the High Court differed from these
conclusions. Dismissing the appeals, this Court
HELD : (i) The purchase of the right to
collect arrears of rent and royalty could not be considered as an income. It
was true that the assessee purchased the lessors' right from the vendor in
pursuance of the agreements entered into by the vendor with third parties whose
rights had been acquired by the assessee. The assessee company had been
incorporated on Jan. 23, 1947. Therefore, it could not have got any right in
the property prior to the conveyance in its favour on Dec. 22, 1947. As per the
terms of the conveyance, the assessee becomes entitled to the arrears of rent
and royalty as a purchaser of those rights. It had no right to collect these
arrears of rent and royalty as the owner of the property. It may be that in
determining the price payable under the conveyance, the arrears of rent and
royalty were not taken into consideration. But that did not change the nature
of the right acquired by the assessee. [520 D] (ii)The findings of the Tribunal
did not afford any basis to it to come to the conclusion that the purchases
made by the assessee and the subsequent sale were in the nature of a trading
adventure. The circumstances that the memorandum of association of the assessee
permitted the assessee to acquire and sell and dispose of and deal with. mining
properties was an inconclusive one. It was not shown that the assessee had
acquired or sold any other property. The fact that the assessee sold property
purchased by it for profit was not decisive in finding out whether the sale was
effected in the course of the business of the assessee.
From the Tact 518 that the assessee could not
undertake large scale and profitable mining in the area which was in its
possession, no inference may be drawn that lands were acquired with a view to
sell later on nor the circumstance that the properties were sold very soon
after they were purchased affords any basis for the conclusion that the sale in
question was effected in the course of the business. [52 B] (iii)If the finding
of fact is based on an inference from the primary evidentiary facts proved in
the case, its correctness or validity is open to challenge in reference
proceedings within narrow limits. It is open, to the parties to challenge a
conclusion of fact drawn by the tribunal on the ground that it is not supported
by any legal evidence or that the impugned conclusion drawn from the relevant
facts is not rationally possible. If such a plea is established, the Court has
to consider whether the conclusion in question is not perverse and should not,
therefore, be set aside. On the facts of this case, the High Court was
justified in examining the correctness of the inference drawn by the Tribunal
on the basis of the primary facts found by that Tribunal. [521 E] G.
Venkataswami Naidu and Co. v. Commissioner of Income tax, 35 I.T.R 594;
followed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals
Nos. 1627 and 1628 of 1968.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated
January 19, 1965 of the Calcutta High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 240 of
1961.
S. Mitra, G. C. Sharma, R. N. Sachthey and D.
B. Sharma, for the appellant (in both the appeals).
The respondent did not appear.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hegde, J. This appeal by certificate arises from the decision of the Calcutta
High Court rendered in a reference made to it by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Calcutta under S. 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922
(which will hereinafter be referred to as the 'Act').
Alongwith its statement of case, the tribunal
submitted two questions to the High Court for its opinion. They are :
"(1) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the sums of Rs.2,55,733/and Rs. 3,00,332/receivable
by the assessee as arrears of royalty and rent were assessable as the income of
the assessee for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1950-51 respectively ? and
(2)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 2,80,000/being
the surplus derived by the assessee on sale of property was assessable as the
income of the assessee for the assessment year 1950-51 519 The facts set out in
the statement of the case, in brief, are a,-, follows :
The assessee M/s. Rajasthan Mines Ltd. is a
public limited Company incorporated on January 23, 1947. The Raja of Ramgarh
was the landlord of the North and South Karanpura fields covering about 312
villages. Those, tracts of lands were rich in coal and fireclay. M/s. Karanpura
Development Co. Ltd., held coal mining licence in about 14 of those villages.
It also held fire,clay leases in about 8 villages and leases of other minerals
in portions of two villages.
That Company had also a prospecting licence
for the coal in the said fields with the option to take further coat mining
leases. The leases were also held by three other parties namely South Karanpura
Development Ltd., Janab Mohammad Kamruddin and Jagadish Prasad ghagat in
respect of other parcels of land, in these fields. By an indenture dated
December 22, 1947 (registered on the 26th of February, 1948), in pursuance, of
agreements dated September 20, 194$ and August 7, 1947, the assessee acquired
from the Raja of Ramgarh proprietory intetest in all those leased out lands,
more fully specified in the schedule appended to the said indenture. By the
said indenture, the Raja of Ramgarh also transferred and assigned to the
assessee his right to receive the arrears of rent and royalty from the lessees
with effect from September 1, 1946. The consideration paid by the assessee for
the acquisition of the proprietory rights with the right to realise and recover
the arrears of rent and royalties was Rs. 5 lacs.
For the assessment year 1948-49, the
Income-tax Officer assessed the entire amount of arrears of rent and royalty
receivable from the said lessees, from September 1, 1946 upto the date of
conveyance namely December 22, 1947, as the assessee income for the previous
year ended on the 31 st March, 1948. The net amount included in the assessment
under that head was Rs. 2,55,733/-.
In the previous year ended on December 31,
1949 relevant for the assessment year 1950-51, the assessee purchased another
,lot of villages from the Raja of Ramgarh as per the conveyance dated January
24, 1949, in pursuance of the agreements already referred to for a consideration
of Rs. 2 lacs with all arrears of rent and royalty which on December 31, 1948
amounted to Rs. 3,00,332/-. On August 13, 1949, the assessee sold away his
right, title and interest in the major portion of the villages acquired under
the aforesaid deeds of conveyance dated December 22, 1947 and January 24, 1949
to Sirka Valley Coal Co. Ltd. and three other parties for a total sum of Rs.
7,50,000/'-. The Income-tax Officer treated the entire arrears of rent and
royalty amounting to Rs. 3,00,332/as revenue receipts of the assessee taxable
during the assessment year 1950-51. He also treated the 520 -sale of the lands
by the assessee as a business transaction and taxed a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/as
the net profit of the assessee arising from the sale, which profit was
recomputed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner at Rs. 2,80,000/-.
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal agreed with
those conclusions.
The High Court of Calcutta differing from the
conclusions reached by the Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner
and the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the sums of Rs. 2,55,733/and Rs.
3,00,332/receivable by the assessee as arrears of royalty and rent were not
assessable as the profits of the assessee for the assessment year 1948-49 and
1950-51 respectively. It also disagreed with the conclusions reached by the
Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal that
profit made by the assessee by the sale of the properties purchased from Raja
of Ramgarh was assessable as the income of the assessee for the assessment year
1950-51. Aggrieved by that order, the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal
has come up in appeal to this Court.
We are in agreement with the High Court that
the purchase of the right to collect arrears of rent and royalty cannot be
considered as an income. It is true that the assessee purchased the lessor's
right from the Raja of Ramgarh in pursuance of the agreements ,entered in to by
the Raja of Ramgarh with third parties whose Tights had been acquired by the assessee.
The assessee company bad been incorporated, as seen earlier, on January 23,
1947. Therefore it could not have got any right in the property prior to the
conveyance in its favour on December 22, 1947. As per the terms of the said
conveyance, the assessee became entitled to the arrears of rent and royalty as
a purchaser of those rights. It had no right to collect those arrears of rent
and royalty as the ,owner of the property. It may be that in determining the
price payable under the conveyance, the, arrears of rent and royalty were not
taken into consideration. But that does not change the nature of the right
acquired by the assessee. Hence we agree with the High Court that the first
question referred to earlier must be ,answered in favour of the assessee.
Now coming to the second question, according
to the assessee, it purchased the tracts of land in question with a view to win
mines but for want of finance, it was compelled to sell the same. The primary
facts found by the tribunal are: (1) the assessee was heavily indebted to Raja
of Ramgarh but there was no evidence to show that the Raja was pressing for the
payment of the amount due to him; (2) the memorandum of association of the
assessee gave it power to acquire, sell and dispose of and deal with mines and
mining properties; (3) as a major part of the land purchased by the assessee
was in the possession of the other mining Companies, it was not possible for
the assessee to undertake any large scale and 5 2 1 profitable mining
operations; (4) the assessee sold the lands purchased by it for a profit and
(5) the properties purchased were sold very soon after they were purchased.
The above findings did not afford any basis
to the tribunal to come to the conclusion that the purchases made by the
assessee and the subsequent sale were in the nature of a trading adventure. The
circumstance that the memorandum of association of the assessee. permitted the
assesses to acquire, and sell and dispose of and (teal with mining properties
is an inconclusive one. It is not shown that the, assessee had acquired or sold
any other property. The fact that the assessee sold property purchased by it
for profit is not decisive in finding out whether the sale was effected in the
course of the business of the assessee.
From the fact that the assessee could not
undertake large scale and profitable mining in the area which was in its
possession, no inference may be drawn that lands were acquired with a view to
sell later on, nor the circumstance that the properties were sold very soon
after they were purchased affords any basis for the conclusion that the sale in
question was effected in the course of the business. The primary facts found
either individually, or collectively could not have afforded a basis for
arriving at the conclusion that the transaction in question was an adventure in
trade.
It was urged on behalf of the Revenue, that
the finding of the tribunal that the purchase and sale of lands, were made in
the course of business being a finding of fact, it was not open to the High
Court to interfere with that finding.
But as observed by this Court in G.
Venkataswami Naidu and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax(1), if the finding of
fact is based on an inference from the primary evidentiary facts proved in the
case, its correctness or validity is open to challenge in reference proceedings
within narrow limits. It is open to the parties to challenge a conclusion of
fact drawn by the tribunal on the ground that it is not supported by any legal
evidence or that the impugned conclusion drawn from the relevant facts is not
rationally possible. If such a plea is established, the court has to consider
whether the conclusion in question is not perverse and should not, therefore,
be set aside. On the facts of this case the High Court was justified in
examining the correctness of the inference drawn by the Tribunal on the basis
of the primary facts found by that Tribunal.
For the reasons mentioned above, we agree
with the High Court that the second question referred to it for its opinion
must also be answered in favour of the assessee.
In the result these appeals fail and they are
dismissed.
Y.P. Appeals dismissed.
(1) 35 I.T.R. 594.
Back
