Rameshwar Lal Sanwarmal Vs.
Commissioner of Income-Tax, Assam [1979] INSC 257 (5 December 1979)
BHAGWATI, P.N.
BHAGWATI, P.N.
PATHAK, R.S.
CITATION: 1980 AIR 372 1980 SCR (2) 369 1980
SCC (2) 371
ACT:
Indian Income Tax Act 1922-Section 2(Income)
(e)-Scope of-Shares in a company registered in the name of Karta of HUF-Company
advanced loans to business concerns of HUF- loans-if "deemed
dividend".
HEADNOTE:
The assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family, owned
certain shares in a private limited company in which the public were not
substantially interested. Though the shares were beneficially owned by the
Hindu Undivided Family, they stood registered in the name of its Karta. From
out of its accumulated profits the company gave loans, in the assessment year
1956-57. to three business concerns which were owned by The assessee. Section
2(6! (e) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 provided that where a private
company in which public were not substantially interested gave loans to its
shareholders from out of its accumulated profits such loan would be treated as
"deemed dividend" in the hands of the shareholders.
The Income Tax officer treated the loans as
"deemed dividend" in the hands of the assessee on The ground that
though the shares stood in the name of the Karta, the assessee being the
beneficial owner, the conditions of section 2(6A)-(e) were satisfied. This view
of the Income Tax officer was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
The Appellate Tribunal rejected the
contentions of the assessee that the loans could not be taxed as "deemed
dividend" in its hands because it was not the registered owner of the
shares; and (2) assuming that they could be treated as "deemed
dividend" they could be taxed only in the hands of the karta. The Tribunal
referred six questions to the High Court.
Answering two out of the si questions, the
High Court held that (1) the loans could not be treated aS "deemed
dividend" in the assessee's hands because the term shareholder used in the
section meant only a person whose name is recorded in the company's register of
shareholders and (2) even assuming that the loans were "deemed
dividend" they could be taxed only in the hands of the registered
shareholder (the Karta). The assessment made by the Income Tax officer was
accordingly set aside.
In appeal to this Court, instead of
questioning the correctness of the answers returned by the High Court the
Revenue attacked only that part of the High Court's order which held that
"deemed dividend" could be taxed only in the hands of the registered
shareholder. Therefore the question before this Court was whether "deemed
dividend" could be taxed in the hands of the beneficial owner of shares or
could be brought to tax only in the hands of the registered shareholder. This
Court answered that where shares are acquired with the funds of one person but
are registered in the name of another it is the beneficial owner who should be
taxed on the dividend on the shares and that this 370 principle applies equally
to "deemed dividend" under the section. Even so, this Court
discharged the answer given by the High Court in favour of the assessee and
substituted an answer in favour of the Revenue.
Placing reliance on the decision of this
Court in C.I.T.. v. Sarathy Mudaliar (83 I.T.R. 170) where it was held that a
loan advanced by a company to a beneficial owner did not fall within the
mischief of section 2(6A)(e) the assessee contended that loans in this case
could not be taxed as "deemed dividend" in its hands.
The Revenue on the other hand contended that
(I) since in the earlier case of Rameswarlal Sanwarmal (82 I.T.R. 628) this
Court had answered the reference in favour of the Revenue and that decision was
final the later decision in Sarathy Mudaliar's case would not be available to
the assessee; (2) although the present question was not specifically considered
by this Court on the earlier occasion it must be held to have been impliedly
decided against the assessee and (3) that the decision in Sarathy Mudaliar's
case was incorrect and should be referred to a larger bench.
^
HELD: The arguments of the Revenue are
fallacious. When the Revenue came in appeal to this Court in the earlier case
of Rameswarlal Sanwarmal it challenged only the second part of the High Court's
decision ignoring the first part. The result was that the first part of the
High Court's decision that loans advanced to The business concerns of a
beneficial owner of shares could not be regarded as 'deemed dividend" in
his hands and that the loans in the sent case did not fall within the meaning
of section 2(6A)(e) remained intact and unaffected by the decision of this
Court. This Court could not have answered the first question against the
assessee without over-ruling the first part of the High Court's decision.
However, through inadvertence, this Court set aside the High Court's answer
without considering whether this part of tile decision was right or wrong. When
no contention was raised on behalf of the Revenue that even if the assessee was
not a registered shareholder loans advanced to its business concerns would be
"deemed dividend" in its hands and there was no occasion for this
Court to consider the question, from the mere fact that an answer was given in
favour of the Revenue, it cannot be said that this contention was impliedly decided
in its favour. [376 C-H]
2. The proper Way of looking at the decision
of this Court in Rameswarlal Sanwarmal would be to regard the answer given in
favour of the Revenue to be confined only to the aspect considered and decided
by this Court, namely, that "deemed dividend" did not stand on any
different tooting from actual dividend and just as actual dividend is liable to
be taxed in the hands of the beneficial 6 owner of the shares. so too
"deemed dividend" must be held liable to be taxed ill the hands of
the beneficial owner. This Court did not consider whether a loan to a
beneficial owner could be regarded as "deemed dividend". Therefore,
this aspect of the question still remained to be answered and it was open to
the assessee to contend that the loans advanced to its business concerns could
not be regarded as "deemed dividend" within the meaning of the
section since the assessee was not a! registered shareholder. [377 A-D] 3 (1)
The decision of this Court in Sarathy Mudaliar's case laid down the law
correctly and there is no need to refer the case to a larger bench. The 371
question whether a loan advanced to beneficial owner of shares would be liable
to be regarded as "deemed dividend" was neither raised nor considered
by this Court in Rameswarlal Sanwarmal's case but came up for consideration for
the first time in Sarathy Mudaliar's case only. There is thus no conflict
between the two decisions, [77 E-l] (b) It is only where a loan is advanced by
a company to a registered shareholder the other conditions set out in the
section are satisfied that the amount of the loan would be liable to be
regarded as "deemed dividend". The amount of loan would not fall
within The mischief of the section if it is granted to a beneficial owner of
the shares. [378 E-F] In the instant case the loans were advanced not to the
registered shareholder but to the business concerns of the beneficial owner.
Hence they could not be regarded loans advanced to a shareholder of the company
within the meaning of the section. [378 H
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 133 or 1979.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and
order dated 13-6-1972 of the Assam High Court in Income Tax Reference No. 2/64.
H. M. Verma and N. R. Choudhary for the
Appellant.
S.C. Manchanda, S.P. Nayar and Miss A.
Subhashini for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BHAGWATI, J.-This appeal by special leave raises a question of law relating to
the interpretation of section 2(6A) (e) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922. The
question is in fact concluded by a decision of this Court in Commissioner of
Income-tax v. C.P. Sarathy Mudaliar but, it has been argued on behalf of the
Revenue that this decision is in conflict with an earlier decision given by
this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal and hence
the question should be referred to a larger Bench. We shall presently consider
these two decisions, but we may point out straight-away that, in our opinion,
there is no conflict between these two decisions and the question is completely
cover d by the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax- v. C. P. Sarathy
Mudaliar (supra)). The facts giving rise to the appeal are not in dispute and
we may briefly state the same in order to appreciate how the question arises
for determination.
The assessee is the Hindu Undivided Family of
M/s. Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal consisting of S. M. Saharia as manager and karta
and 372 his wife and a minor son. The assessment year with which we are
concerned in the appeal is 1956-57, the relevant accounting year being the year
ending Ramanavami Sambat 2012, that is, 18th April, 1956. During this
assessment year, the assessee was the beneficial owner of certain shares in a
private limited company called Shyam Sunder Tea Co. (P) Limited. These shares
though beneficially owned by the assessee stood in the name of S.M. Saharia in
the register of shareholders of the Company. The assessee also owned 3 business
concerns, namely, Nilmony Shop, Saharia & Co. and Saharia Industrial Corporation.
The Company advanced loans to these 3 business concerns during the relevant
assessment year and since it was a company in which public were not
substantially interested, a question arose in the assessment of the assessee to
income-tax, whether the loans advanced to these 3 business concerns could be
regarded as "deemed dividend" of the assessee under section 2(6A)(e)
of the Act? 'he Income-tax officer took the view that the loans advanced to the
3 business concerns were attributable to the accumulated profits of the company
to the extent of Rs. 4,48,045 and since the assessee which owned the 3 business
concerns was the beneficial owner of the shares standing in the name of S. M.
Saharia, the conditions of section 2(6A) (e) were satisfied and the loans were
liable to be regarded as "deemed dividend" taxable in the hands of
the assessee under section 2(6A) (e). The assessee preferred an appeal against
the order of assessment but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with
the view taken by the Income-tax officer and held that since S. M. Saharia held
shares in the company as representing the assessee and the loans were advanced
to the three business concerns belonging the assessee out of the accumulated
profits of the company, the Income-tax officer was justified in treating the
loans as "deemed dividend" under section 2(6A) (e); and taxing them
in the hands of the assessee. The matter was carried in further appeal to the
Tribunal and several arguments were advanced on behalf of the assessee resisting
the applicability of section 2(6A) (e), but of them, there are two which are
material for our purpose and they are: first, that since the assessee was not a
registered holder of shares in the company, the loans advanced to the three
business concerns of the assessee could not be regarded aS loans advanced to a
share-holder so as to attract the applicability of section 2(6A) (e); and
secondly, even if the loans could be treated as "deemed dividend"
under section 2(6A) (e), they could be taxed only ill the hands of S. M.
Saharia, the registered shareholder and not : in the hands of the, assessee.
Both these arguments were negatived by the Tribunal and so also were the other
subordinate arguments and the appeal was rejected and the assessment confirmed.
This led 373 to a reference application by the assessee and on the application,
five A. questions of law were referred by the Tribunal to the High Court. There
were, in fact, six questions but for the purpose of the present appeal, it is
not necessary to refer to the first question, since it related to the
assessment year 1955-56 and it raised a point of limitation which was
ultimately decided in favour of the assessee and there is no dispute about it.
The other five questions related to the taxability of the loans advanced to the
three business concerns of the assessee as "deemed dividend" under
section 2((A)(e) and each of these questions brought in issue different aspect
of taxability. It is the first of these questions which is material and we may
re- produce it as follows:
"Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, and on a true interpretation of the terms of section
2(6A) (e) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the Tribunal was right ill holding that
the amounts of Rs. 2,21,702 (gross) and Rs. 3,43,505 (net) were taxable as
dividends in the hands of the applicant H.U.F. for the assessment year 1955-56
and 1956-57 respectively, when the shares were registered in the name of Sri S.
M. Saharia, the karta of the family ?" This question referred to both the
assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57, but we are not concerned in this appeal
with the controversy relating to the assessment year 1955-56 and hence we shall
confine ourselves only to the assessment year 1956-57.
Now two distinct aspects were comprised in
this question and both were argued before the High Court. One was whether the
loans advanced to the three business concerns of the assessee could be regarded
as "deemed dividend" within the meaning of section 2(6A) (e) and the
other was whether these loans, even if regarded as "deemed dividend"
could be taxed in the hands of the assessee. The High Court decided both these
aspects of the question in favour of the assessee and held that the word
"share-holder" in section 2(6A) (e) meant registered share-holder or
in other words, a shareholder whose name is recorded in the Register of the
company as the holder of the shares and since the advance in the present case
was made to the assessee which was not a registered share-holder, it could not
be regarded as "deemed dividend" within the meaning of section 2(6A)
(e) and that even if it be assumed that the advance was liable to be regarded
as "deemed dividend" under section 2(6A) (e), it could be taxed as
dividend income only of the registered share-holder and not Only of the
assessee. This view taken by the High Court rendered it unnecessary to decide
the other four questions and the High Court 374 accordingly declined to
consider them. The result of this decisions was that the assessment made by the
Revenue Authorities was set aside in so far as it included the loans advanced
by the company to the three business concerns of the assessee as deemed
dividend and taxed it in the hands of the assessee.
The Revenue, being aggrieved by the decision
of the High Court, preferred an appeal after obtaining special leave of this
Court. Now it seems that through some inadvertence which is difficult to
understand, the Revenue attacked only that part of the order of the High Court
which held that the "deemed dividend" could be assessed to tax only
in the hands of S.M. Saharia, the registered share- holder and no in the hands
of the assessee which was merely the beneficial owner cf the shares. Neither in
the statement of case filed on its behalf nor in the course of the arguments
the Revenue assailed the correctness of the view taken by the High Court that
since the assessee was not a registered shale holder, loans advanced to the
assessee could not be regarded as "deemed dividend" under section
2(6) (e). The result was that the only question that came to be considered by
this Court was whether the "deemed dividend under section 2(6A)(e) could
be taxed in the hands of the beneficial owner of the shares or it could be
brought to tax only in the assessment of the registered share-holder and the
view taken was that where the shares acquired with the funds of one person are
held ill the name of another, it is the former who is assessable to tax on the
dividend on those shares and this principle would apply equally on the 'deemed
dividend' under section 2(6A)(e). This Court did not consider whether the loans
granted to the three business concerns o the assessee could at all be regarded
as 'deemed dividend' within the meaning of section 2(6A)(e) when the assessee
was not a registered share-holder and the decision of the High Court to the
effect that the assessee not being a registered share-holder, the loan advanced
to it advanced not be regarded as 'deemed dividend' under section 2(6A)(e)
remained undisturbed. Now obviously, so long as the decision of the High Court
on this point was not over-ruled, the question whether the amount of the loans
was taxable as "deemed dividend" in the hands of the assessee could
not be answered in favour of the Revenue. But sometimes even Homer nods and
through same unfortunate inadvertence for which the counsel appearing on behalf
of the assessee in that case must accept full responsibility, this Court
discharged the answer given by the High Court in favour of the assessee and in
its place substituted an answer, in favour o the, Revenue. This decision of the
Court is reported in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rameshwar Lal Sanwarlal
(supra).
375 Since the first question relating to the
assessment year 1956-57 was answered by this Court in favour of the Revenue,
the Reference went to the High Court for consideration of the remaining
questions that had not been answered by the High Court. It appears that at the
hearing of the Reference the first two out of the remaining four questions were
not pressed on behalf of the assessees and only the last two questions were
argued before the High Court. Both these questions were considered by the High
Court and they were answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
The assessee thereupon preferred the present appeal after obtaining special
leave from this Court.
There is only one contention advanced on
behalf of the assessee in support or the appeal, namely, that the amounts of
the loans advanced to the three business concerns of the assessee could not be
regarded was 'deemed dividend' within The meaning of section 2(6A)(e) since the
assessee was not a registered share-holder of the company. This contention was
sought to be supported by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of
Income-tax v. C.P. Sarathy Mudaliar (supra).
Now there can be no doubt that the decision
of this Court in C.I.T. v. C.P. Sarathy Mudaliar (supra) lays down that it isl
only where a loan is advanced by a company to a registered share-holder out of
its accumulate(i profits that it would be liable to be regarded as 'deemed
dividend' under sec. 2(6A)(e) and a loan to a beneficial owner of the share
docs not come within the mischief of that section and if this decision
represents the correct law on the subject, the amounts of loans advanced to the
three business concerns o the assessee would not possibly be brought within the
net o taxation as 'deemed dividend'. But the argument urged on behalf of the
Revenue was that it was not open to the assessee to raise this contention based
on the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. C. P. Sarathy Mudaliar
(supra), since it was covered by the first question which had already been
answered in favour of the Revenue by this Court. The Revenue conceded That this
contention was not specifically raised before the Court when the first question
came to be considered but it must be held to have been impliedly decided
against the assessee, since the first question could not be answered ill favour
of the Revenue on any other hypothesis. This argument of the Revenue does
appear to be very plausible It first blush, but if it is scrutinised closely it
will be apparent that it is fallacious and cannot be accepted. The most
important circumstance which it ignores is that when the Reference was first
heard by the High Court, the first question was decided in favour of the
assessee on two counts, one was that since the assessee was not a registered
share-holder of the company, the loans advanced to the three business 376
concerns of the assessee could not be regarded as 'deemed dividend' within the
meaning of section 2(6A) (e) and the other was that even if they could be
treated as 'deemed dividend' under section 2(5A) (e), they could be taxed only
in the hands of S. M. Saharya, the registered share-holder and not in the hands
of the assessee who was merely a beneficial owner of the shares. When the
Revenue preferred an appeal against the judgment of the High Court, the Revenue
should have assailed the decision of the High Court in both its limbs, but
through some inadvertence which is difficult to understand, the Revenue
challenged by the second limb of the decision ignoring completely the first.
The result was that the decision of the High
Court that the amounts of loans advanced to the three business concerns of the
assessee did not fall within the definition of 'deemed dividend' in section
2(6A)(e) remained intact and unaffected by the decision of this Court in the
appeal. Now, it is true that this Court could not have answered the first
question against the assessee without over-ruling this part of the decision or
the High Court, but through some unfortunate error, this Court set aside the
answer given by the High Court in favour of the assessee without considering
whether this part of the decision of the High Court was right o wrong. When no
contention was raised on behalf of the Revenue before this Court that the
decision of the High Court on this point was wrong and that even though the
assessee was not a registered shareholder, the amounts of loans advanced to the
three business concerns of the assessee were still liable to be regarded as
"deemed dividend" under section 2(6A) (e) and no such contention
formed the subject-matter of discussion before this Court and this Court had,
therefore, no occasion to consider this question, it is difficult to see how it
can be said merely from the answer given by this Court in favour of the Revenue
that this contention was impliedly decided in favour of the Revenue. It would
be straining logic to an absurd limit to say that though this contention was
not raised, not argued, not discussed and not decided, yet it must be held to
have been impliedly decided because through an error committed by this Court,
an answer was given in favour of the Revenue in ignorance of the true position.
lt would also not be right to hold that merely because this Court erroneously
answered the first question against the assessee without considering whether
the view taken by the High Court on this point was incorrect, the assessee must
be precluded from raisin the contention that the assessee not being a
registered share- holder, the amounts of loans advanced to the three business
concerns of the assessee did not fall within the definition of "deemed
dividend" under section 2(6A)(e). Why should the assessee, which had the
decision of the High Court of this point in its favour and 377 which decision
was not assailed by the Revenue in the appeal and which remained undisturbed by
this Court, be prejudiced on account of an obvious error committed by the court.
The proper way of looking at the decision of this Court would be to regard the
answer given in favour of the Revenue to be confined only to the aspect
considered and decided by this Court. The only aspect considered by this Court
was whether the "deemed dividend" under section 2(6A) (e) could be
taxed in the hands of the beneficial owner of the shares or it could be
assessed to only in the hands of the registered shareholder, and this Court
held that "deemed dividend" did not stand on any different footing
from actual dividend and just as actual dividend was liable to be taxed in the
hands of the beneficial owner of the shares, so also "deemed
dividend" must be held liable to be taxed in the assessment of the
beneficial owner. This Court did not decided the question whether a loan
advanced to a beneficial owner of the shares can be regarded as "deemed
dividend" within the meaning of section 2(6A) (e) an the answer given by
this Court in favour of the Revenue cannot be said to extend to this aspect of
the question. We would, therefore, hold that the first question still remains
to be answered so far as this aspect of the question is concerned and it is
open to the, assessee to contend that the amounts of loans advanced to the
three business concerns of the assessee could not be regarded as "deemed
dividend" under section-, 2(6A)(e), since the assessee was not a
registered shareholder.
It is also obvious from what we have said
above that there is no conflict between the decisions of this Court in C.I.T.
v. Rameswarlal Sanwarmal and C.I.T. v. C.P. Sarathy Mudaliar (supra). The
question whether, on a proper construction of section 2(6A) (e), a loan advance
to a beneficial owner of the shares would be liable to be regarded Ll;
"deemed dividend" was not raised or argued before this Court in
C.I.T.. v. Rameswarlal Sanwarmal and this Court was not called upon to decide
it and hence there is no discussion about it in the judgment of this Court nor
is there any decision on it. It is only in the subsequent decision in C.I.T..
v. C. P. Sarathy Mudaliar (supra) that this question came up for the first time
before this Court for consideration and this Court held that when sec. 2(6A)
(e) speaks of a "shareholder" it refers to the registered shareholder
and not to the beneficial owner and hence a loan granted to a beneficial owner
of the shares who is not a registered shareholder cannot be regarded as a loan
advanced to a "shareholder" of he company so as to be within the
mischief of section 2(6A(e). There is thus no conflict at all between the
decisions in. C.I.T. v. C. P Sarathy Mudaliar (supra and C.I.T. v. Rameswarlal
Sanwarlal. In fact, Mr. Justice Hegde was, a common Member of the Bench in both
378 the cases and the subsequent decision in C.l.T. v. C. P. Sarathy Mudaliar was
given within less than a month after the decision in C.l.T. v. Rameshwarlal
Sanwarmal. lt is impossible to believe that Mr. Justice Hegde was oblivious of
the decision in C.I.T.. v. Rameswarlal Sanwarmal when he delivered the judgment
in C.l.T. v. C. P. Sarathy Mudaliar.
The Revenue lastly contended that the
decision in C.I.T. v. C.P. Sarathy Mudaliar is incorrect and we must refer the
present case to a larger Bench. Now it is obvious that before we can be
persuaded to accede to this request, we must be satisfied that the decision in
Com missioner of Income Tax v. C. P. Sarathy Mudaliar is wrong. But having
given our most anxious consideration, we find ourselves unable to disagree with
the view taken in that decision.
What section 2(6A) (e) is designed to strike
at is advance or loan to a "shareholder" and the t word
"shareholder" can mean only a! registered shareholder. It is
difficult to see how a beneficial owner of shares whose name does not appear in
the register of shareholders of the company can be said o be a
"shareholder". He may be beneficially entitled to the shares but he
is certainly not a "shareholder". It is only the person whose name is
entered in the register of shareholders of the company as the holder of the
shares who can be said to be a shareholder qua the company, and not the person
beneficially entitled to the shares. It is the former who is a
"shareholder" within the matrix and scheme of the company law and not
the latter. We are, therefore, of the view that it is only where a loan is
advanced by the company to a registered shareholder and the other conditions
set out in section 2(6A) (e) are satisfied that the amount of the loan would be
liable to be regarded as 'deemed dividend' within the meaning of section 2(6A)
(e). The amount of the loan would not fall within the mischief of this section
if it is granted to a beneficial owner of the shares who is not the registered
shareholder. The decision in C.I.T.. v. C. P. Sarathy Mudaliar does, in our
opinion, lay down the correct interpretation of section 2(6A) (e).
Now in the present case it was common ground
that the loans were advanced to the three business concerns of the assessee
which was a Hindu Undivided Family and this Hindu Undivided Family was not the
registered holder of any shares in the company but it was the beneficial owner
of certain shares which stood in the name OF the Manager and Karta, Shri S. M.
Saharya. The loans were thus advanced to the beneficial owner of the shares and
not to the registered shareholder and hence they could not be regarded as loans
advanced to a "shareholder" of the company within the meaning of
section 2(6A) (e). Section 2(6A) (e) was accordingly not attracted and the
amounts of the loans could not be taxed as deemed dividends 379 in the hands of
the assessee. We accordingly answer the first question A in favour of the
assessee so far as this aspect is concerned. In view of this answer to the
first question, it is not necessary to consider the other two questions decided
by the High Court on remand. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
assesses, in fact, did not press them.
There will he lo order as to costs of the
appeal.
B.B.A..
Back
