1953 (10) TMI 5 - SC - Income Tax

Court rules transfer of shares and silver bars not taxable income

Sir Kikabhai Premchand Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), Bombay

The court held that no income arose to the appellant from the transfer of shares and silver bars to the trustees. The majority emphasized that only actual ... Whether in the circumstances of the case any income arose to the assessee as a result of the transfer of shares and silver bars to the trustees ? Whether the method employed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and upheld by the Appellate Tribunal in computing the assessee's income from the transfer is the proper method for computing the income ? Held that:- Our answer to the first question is that in the circumstances of this case no income arose to the appellant as a result of the transfer of the shares and silver bars to the trustees. In view of that, the second question does not arise. Appeal allowed. The appeal is allowed Issues Involved:1. Whether any income arose to the assessee as a result of the transfer of shares and silver bars to the trustees.2. If income did arise, whether the method employed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and upheld by the Appellate Tribunal in computing the assessee's income from the transfer was the proper method for computing the income.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether any income arose to the assessee as a result of the transfer of shares and silver bars to the trustees:Majority Judgment by Bose, J.:The appellant, who deals in silver and shares, withdrew some bars and shares from his business and settled them on certain trusts. The appellant credited the business with the cost price of the bars and shares withdrawn. The primary contention was whether this act of withdrawal resulted in income, profit, or gain and thus should be taxable.The Attorney-General argued that any withdrawal from the business should be accounted for at the market rate prevailing at the date of withdrawal. He further contended that if the market price is higher than the cost price, the State is deprived of a potential profit.The court found this contention unsound, stating that for income-tax purposes, each year is a self-contained accounting period and only actual income, profits, and gains made in that year can be taxed. Potential future profits cannot be taxed. The court held that the withdrawal was not a business transaction and did not result in any immediate pecuniary gain. Thus, the State has no power to tax a potential future advantage.The court emphasized that in revenue cases, substance takes precedence over form. Since the business is owned and run by the assessee himself, it is unrealistic to treat them as separate entities trading with each other. The court concluded that the appellant's method of bookkeeping, which reflected the true state of his finances, showed no income, profit, or gain from the withdrawal.Separate Judgment by Bhagwati, J.:Bhagwati, J., concurred with the majority but provided additional reasoning. He explained that the assessee kept his books on a mercantile basis and valued his closing stock at cost price. The withdrawal of shares and silver bars was shown in the books at cost price, which the assessee contended should be the basis for computing his income.Bhagwati, J., argued that whether an asset is realized or withdrawn from the stock-in-trade, the business should credit the market value of the asset at the date of withdrawal. He reasoned that the appreciation or depreciation in value should be reflected in the accounts, and the market value at the date of withdrawal is the proper measure of the asset's value.He disagreed with the Calcutta High Court's decision in the case of Messrs. Chouthmal Golapchand, which did not account for the depreciation in value at the date of partition. He concluded that the High Court's answers to both questions were correct, and the appeal should be dismissed.Conclusion:The majority held that no income arose to the appellant as a result of the transfer of shares and silver bars to the trustees. Therefore, the second question did not arise.2. If income did arise, whether the method employed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and upheld by the Appellate Tribunal in computing the assessee's income from the transfer was the proper method for computing the income:Since the majority held that no income arose from the transfer, the second issue did not require a detailed analysis. However, Bhagwati, J., provided his reasoning on the proper method for computing income if it were applicable.Bhagwati, J.'s Analysis:He argued that the market value at the date of withdrawal should be the basis for computing income. He reasoned that the appreciation or depreciation in value should be reflected in the accounts, and the market value at the date of withdrawal is the proper measure of the asset's value.Conclusion:The majority's decision rendered the second issue moot. However, Bhagwati, J., provided a detailed analysis supporting the market value at the date of withdrawal as the proper method for computing income.Final Judgment:The appeal was allowed with costs, with the majority holding that no income arose from the transfer of shares and silver bars to the trustees.