AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1958 (10) TMI 11
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e company which had accrued during the six accounting years preceding the liquidation. It should be mentioned that there was in the State of Udaipur no law imposing tax on income, and that it was only under the Indian Finance Act, 1950, that the residents of the State of Rajasthan, in which the State of Udaipur had merged, became liable for the first time to pay tax on their income. That Act came into force on April 1, 1950. We are concerned in these proceedings with the assessment of tax for the year 1951-52, and that, under section 3 of the Act, has to be on the income of the previous year, i.e., 1950-51. Now, the dispute in the present case relates to the sum of Rs. 26,000 paid by the liquidator to the appellant on April 22, 1950. By his order dated July 3, 1952, the Income-tax Officer held that this was dividend as defined in section 2(6A)(c) of the Act, and included it in the taxable income of the appellant in the year of account. The appellant took this order in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who by his order dated January 12, 1953, confirmed the assessment. There was a further appeal by the appellant to the Appellate Tribunal, who also dismissed it on Novembe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the profits which were distributed had been accumulated during the years 1943-44 to 1948-49, i.e., during the six years preceding the liquidation. The point in controversy is whether those years can be said to be "previous. years" within section 2(6A)(c) of the Act. The appellant contends that "previous year" as defined in section 2(11) of the Act means the year which is previous to the assessment year, that accordingly when there is no year of assessment, there can be no previous year, that construing the words "six previous years" in section 2(6A)(c) in the light of the definition of "previous year" in section 2(11) of the Act, the years 1943-44 to 1948-49 cannot be held to be previous years, because the Indian Income-tax Act came into force in the State of Rajasthan only on April 1, 1950, and prior to that date there was at no time any law imposing tax on income in the State of Udaipur, that there was, therefore, no year of assessment, and that, in consequence, the sum of Rs. 26,000 received by the appellant on April 22, 1950, is not a dividend as defined in section 2(6A)(c). The contention of the respondent which has been accepted by the Income-tax authorities and by the lear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1897, words in the singular should be read as including the plural, and that, therefore, the definition of "previous year" in section 2(11) could be read as meaning "previous years". But section 13 only enacts a rule of construction which is to apply "unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context", and to read a "previous year" as "previous years" in section 2(11) would be to nullify the very definition of a "previous year" enacted therein, and such a construction must therefore be rejected as repugnant to the context. It was then suggested that all the six previous years might be regarded as previous each to the next following year if that was itself a year of assessment, and that such a construction would, consistently with the contention of the appellant, give full effect to the definition in section 2(11) of the Act. But this argument overlooks that while there may be several preceding years to a given year of assessment there can be only one previous year in relation to it, and that it would make no sense to speak of six previous years with reference to a year of assessment. We are satisfied that it would be repugnant to the definition of " dividend " in sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o that extent has been left untouched by section 2(6A)(c). And it has accordingly been held by the High Courts that the current profits of a company in liquidation which are distributed to the shareholders are not dividend within section 2(6A)(c), vide Appavu Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Girdhardas & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. Therefore, accumulated profits which are sought to be caught in section 2(6A)(c) would be the profits accumulated in the financial years preceding the year in which the liquidation takes place, and it is this that is sought to be expressed by the words "previous years" in section 2(6A)(c). In the present case, as the company went into liquidation on January 18, 1950, excluding the current year which commenced on April 1, 1949, the six previous years will be the years 1943-44 to 1948-49. So far, we have considered the question on the language of section 2(6A)(c) and the policy underlying it. On behalf of the respondent, certain authorities were cited as supporting his contention that the expression "previous years" in section 2(6A)(c) is not to be interpreted in the sense in which the expression "previous year" is defined in sectio....