1967 (5) TMI 1 - SC - Income Tax

Court dismisses appeals, denies rebate under Tax Concessions Order, 1950. No apportionment, appellant not eligible.

Seth Pushalal Mansinghka (P.) Ltd Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi, Rajasthan And Madhya Pradesh

The court dismissed the appeals, ruling that the appellant was not entitled to a rebate under the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950, as the ... Income from the mining business - Whether the assessee was entitled to any rebate under the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order - Held, no - Assessee's appeal dismissed Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to rebate under the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950.2. Applicability of section 4(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.3. Determination of the place where income accrued or was received.4. Validity of the discounting of bills by the Bank of Rajasthan.5. Claim for apportionment of profits accrued.Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Rebate under the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950:The appellant, a private limited company, claimed entitlement to a rebate on profits from sales under the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950. The Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and Appellate Tribunal all held that the sales took place in Part A and Part C States, and thus, the appellant was not entitled to the rebate. The High Court also answered the question in the negative, agreeing that the appellant was not entitled to any rebate.2. Applicability of Section 4(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922:The appellant argued that section 4(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was not applicable to its transactions. However, the Income-tax Officer and subsequent appellate authorities concluded that the entire profits from the sales accrued and were received in Part A and Part C States. Section 4(1)(a) includes all income received or deemed to be received in the taxable territories, which applied to the appellant's transactions.3. Determination of the Place where Income Accrued or was Received:The key question was where the income or the right to receive payment under the contracts of sale accrued or arose. The court referred to definitions and precedents, noting that 'accrue' and 'arise' indicate a right to receive, not actual receipt. The court determined that profits accrued where the property in the goods passed to the purchasers, which in this case was at Kodarma and Giridih in Part A and Part C States, not at Bhilwara in Part B State.4. Validity of the Discounting of Bills by the Bank of Rajasthan:The appellant claimed that some sales bills were discounted by the Rajasthan Bank and thus should be treated as received at Bhilwara. The Income-tax Officer found the discounting letter to be forged and even if bills were discounted, the appellant's responsibility did not cease until the bank realized payment from the purchaser. The court agreed, stating that the bank's actions were part of usual banking transactions and did not mean the property in the goods passed to the bank. The property passed to the purchasers only when they paid the price to the bank.5. Claim for Apportionment of Profits Accrued:The appellant argued for apportionment of profits, claiming that part of the income accrued at Bhilwara due to the extraction, processing, sorting, packing, and despatching of mica. However, the court noted that this issue was not raised before the Appellate Tribunal nor considered by it. Citing precedent, the court held that it could not consider this question as it was not part of the Tribunal's order.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellant was not entitled to any rebate under the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950, and that the income accrued in Part A and Part C States. The claim for apportionment of profits was not considered due to procedural grounds. The appeals were dismissed with costs.