1974 (7) TMI 4 - HC - Income Tax

Court rules Rs. 3 lakh receipt as capital, not taxable for 1957-58 assessment year.

The High Court held that the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs received by the assessee-firm was a capital receipt not chargeable to tax for the assessment year ... Act Of 1922, Original Assessment, Rate Applicable, Total Income Issues Involved:1. Whether the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs receivable by the assessee under the consent terms dated 21-6-1956 was a revenue receipt chargeable to income-tax for the assessment year 1957-58.Detailed Analysis:1. Nature of the Receipt (Capital vs. Revenue):The core issue in this case is whether the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs receivable by the assessee-firm under the consent terms dated 21-6-1956 was a capital receipt or a revenue receipt chargeable to income-tax for the assessment year 1957-58. The assessee-firm, a registered partnership, entered into finance agreements with a company to provide financing for importing petroleum products. The agreements stipulated that the assessee-firm would finance the company up to Rs. 10 lakhs and receive interest and commission on the goods imported, irrespective of whether the company actually borrowed the finance.Differences arose between the parties, leading to a consent decree where the company agreed to pay Rs. 3 lakhs as compensation for terminating the agreements. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) included this amount in the total income of the assessee-firm, treating it as a trading receipt. This view was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC), but the Tribunal reversed this decision, treating the amount as a capital receipt.2. Arguments by the Revenue:The revenue argued that the agreements were routine trade contracts entered into in the ordinary course of the assessee-firm's business. The compensation was seen as a solatium for the profits the assessee-firm would have earned had the agreements not been terminated. The revenue relied on two Supreme Court decisions, CIT v. South India Pictures Ltd. and CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji, to support their contention that the compensation was a revenue receipt.3. Arguments by the Assessee:The assessee-firm contended that the agreements were not routine trade contracts but rather formed a permanent framework of their business, ensuring a steady source of income. The compensation was for the injury to this profit-making apparatus, making it a capital receipt. The assessee-firm emphasized that the financing agreements were the first of their kind and not part of their ordinary business of exporting cloth on commission.4. Tribunal's Findings:The Tribunal found that the agreements conferred certain rights on the assessee-firm, ensuring a steady source of income through interest and commission, even if no finance was actually provided. The termination of these agreements resulted in the destruction of this profit-making apparatus, making the compensation a capital receipt. The Tribunal held that the compensation was not chargeable to tax.5. High Court's Analysis:The High Court analyzed the nature of the agreements and the terms and conditions. It noted that the financing arrangement was distinct from the assessee-firm's original business and provided a steady source of income. The court emphasized that the agreements created a profit-making apparatus, and the compensation was for the destruction of this apparatus, making it a capital receipt.The court distinguished the present case from the Supreme Court decisions cited by the revenue. In CIT v. South India Pictures Ltd., the compensation was for the loss of commission in the ordinary course of business, whereas in the present case, the compensation was for the destruction of a profit-making apparatus. Similarly, in CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji, the agreements were adjustments in the ordinary course of business, unlike the present case where the agreements created an enduring source of income.Conclusion:The High Court concluded that the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs was a capital receipt not chargeable to tax. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, and the question was answered in the negative and against the revenue. The revenue was directed to pay the costs of the reference.