INDIAN COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES CO. (P.) LTD. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
1997 P T D 688
[213 ITR 533]
[Madras High Court (India)]
Before Gulab C. Gupta and Thanikkachalam, JJ
INDIAN COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES CO. (P.) LTD
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.
Tax Case No. 1147 of 1981, decided on 28/07/1994.
Income-tax---
----Business loss---Purchase of shares in company for purposes of increasing business with company---Loss on sale of shares---Deductible as business loss.
The assessee claimed a loss of Rs.39,000 arising on sale of shares in a company as business loss. The assessee supported the claim by producing correspondence between it and the company to show that the shares were purchased only on being pressurized by the said company and with the intention of obtaining more business from them. The assessee also submitted that because of these purchases, there was a phenomenal increase in the business of the assessee with the company. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim and this was upheld by the Tribunal. On a reference:
Held, that the shares were purchased because of coercion by the company and also with a view to increase the assessee's business with the company. Hence, there was a nexus between the business of the assessee and the purchase of the shares. The sum of Rs.39,000 was allowable as a business loss .
Patnaik & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 161 ITR 365 (SC) fol.
CIT (Addl.) v. B. M. S. (P.) Ltd. (1979) 119 ITR 321 (Mad.); CIT V. Dhandayuthapani Foundry (P.) Ltd. (1980) 123 ITR 709 (Mad).; CIT v. Gobald Motor Service (P.) Ltd. (1975) 100 ITR 240 (Mad).; CIT v. Industry and Commerce Enterprises (P.) Ltd. (1979) 118 ITR 606 (Orissa) and Ramnarain Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 534 (SC) ref.
P.P.S. Janarhana Raja for the Assessee.
N.V. Balasubramanian for the Commissioner,
JUDGMENT
GULAB C. GUPTA, J.---This is a reference under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in accordance with the direction of this Court referring the following three questions for the opinion of this Court:
"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in its conclusion that a sum of Rs.39,000 cannot be allowed as a business loss?
(2) Whether the Tribunal having come to the conclusion that the investment in the shares in question for the purpose of acquiring more business is justified in rejecting the claim that the amount in question cannot be allowed as a deduction in business loss?
(3) Whether the conclusion of the Tribunal that the sum of Rs.39,000 is not a business loss, is a fair and reasonable view to take in the matter?"
The assessee is a company carrying on business in structural engineering and was, at the relevant time, having business relations with Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. In the year 1961, the assessee acquired 6,000 shares of Rs.10 each in the said company. These shares were subsequently sold by the assessee during the previous year ending on September 30, 1976, relevant to the assessment year 1977-78 for Rs.21,000. Thus, the assessee incurred a loss of Rs.39,000 in this deal. The assessee had also acquired another lot of 10,000 shares at Rs.10 each in the same company on July 13, 1972, valued at a sum of Rs.l lakh. These shares were also sold by the assessee during the previous year under reference for Rs.35,000. The assessee, therefore, incurred a loss of Rs.65,000. The earlier shares were held for more than five years and the second lot of 10,000 shares for less than five years. The assessee claimed that the above loss should be deducted in computing the income of the assessee from business on the ground that the loss arose in the course of business. The assessee supported the claim by producing the correspondence between it and Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. to show that the shares were purchased only on being pressurized by the said company and with the intention of obtaining more business from them. They also submitted that because of these purchases, there was a phenomenal increase in, the business of the assessee-company with Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim holding that the establishment of business with Kothari Group way; itself a capital asset and the shares had not been converted into stock-in. trade. He was, therefore, of the opinion that, the investment in capital could only be treated as capital investment. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramnarain Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 534. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found as a fact that tilt, shares had been purchased in order to have good business with Kothari, Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. In spite of it, it was held that since the assessee did not treat those shares as stock-in-trade, it was not entitled to treat the loss as business loss. The assessment was, therefore, upheld. On further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee was not a dealer in shares and stocks and there was no compulsion on it to purchase or sell those shares. The Appellate Tribunal further found that the improvement in the assessee's business with the Kothari Group may be for more than one reason. It was therefore, held that the loss could not be treated as a business loss and the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the assessee requested for a reference, ?which has been made.
A perusal of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner clearly indicates that the said Commissioner had accepted the submission the assessee that the shares were purchased with a view to improve business? with Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. The business returns of the: subsequent years were held to justify the said expectation. The learned Commissioner had also found that the shares were purchased by the assess because of the insistence from Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. In spite of it, the said Appellate Authority did not grant benefit as, according to hit the assessee itself allowed the same to remain as capital asset. These findings, in our opinion, are based on documents on record and have not been set aside by the Appellate Tribunal. In fact, the Appellate Tribunal ha itself noticed that the shares were purchased by the assessee-company on tine insistence of Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner has observed in paragraph 10 of his order that the material available shows that the appellant would not have had this much of turnover but for their cooperation with Kothari Group in making the investments as expected of them. Similarly, in paragraph 11 also, he had recorded that the shares were purchased because of coercion from the Kothari Group and also with a view to increase the appellant's business with the Kothari Group. Its spite of these findings, the Tribunal did not give the benefit to the assessee because those shares were not converted into stock-in-trade. In view of those findings, it is apparent that there is a nexus between the business of the company and the purchase of the shares. The business of the company would? not have increased as it did actually but for these shares. The question requiring consideration is whether loss suffered by selling these shares c. told t be treated as business loss or not? The question came up for consideration of a Division Bench of this Court in Addl. CIT v. B.M.S. (P.) Ltd. (1979) l l9 ITR 321. It was a case where the assessee, who was in the road transport business, succumbed to the pressure of the regional Transport Authorities and purchased Government bonds carrying 4-1/2 percent interest. He later on suffered loss by selling those bonds and claimed the same as business loss. This Court relying on its earlier decision in CIT v. Gobald Motor Services (P.) Ltd. (1975) 10 ITR 240 held that the loss was a business loss as it was incurred in order to procure better business for the assessee-firm. This decision has received the approval of the Supreme Court in Patnaik & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 161 ITR 365. It was a case where the assessee, who was 1 dealer in automobile spare parts, had invested some amount in purchasing Orissa Government Floated Loan. 1972, because of the insistence of the Transport Authorities. Since he suffered loss in this deal, he claimed the said loss as a revenue loss. It was not allowed and eventually the matter was taken to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court approved the decision of this Court in Addl. CIT v. B.M.S. (P.) Ltd. (1979) 119 ITR 321 and held that the assessee had subscribed to the Government loan only with a view to obtain preferential treatment in his business with the Government and for that reason treated the loss as business loss. Not only the decision of this Court but the decision of the Orissa High Court in CIT v. Industry and Commerce Enterprises (P.) Ltd. (1979) 118 ITR 606 and CIT v. Dhandayuthapani Foundry (P.) Ltd. (1980) 123 ITR 709 (Mad.) were also approved. No subsequent decision of the Supreme Court has been brought to our notice taking a contrary view of the matter. Learned counsel for the Revenue, however, submitted that as long as the shares were not treated to be stock-in? trade by the assessee, the loss could not have been treated to be a business loss. He had relied upon the decision in Ramnarain Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 534 (SC). In the aforesaid case, the assessee was a dealer in shares and securities and also carried on business managing agent of other firms. He had, in order to acquire the managing agency of a textile mill, purchased shares of another company. The subsequent sale of those shares caused loss to him and the loss was claimed as a trading loss. The Supreme Court found as a matter of fact that the shares were purchased at far in excess of their market price to facilitate the acquisition of the managing agency and for that reason, treated the same as a capital asset. The decision depended on the intention of the assessee in purchasing the shares as a capital asset. The aforesaid judgment would not in any way go contrary to the subsequent judgment in Patnaik & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 161 ITR 365 (SC). Since this Court is bound by the aforesaid judgment, there is no reason why the loss suffered by the assessee in this case should not be treated as a business loss. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal is not correct in holding that the loss suffered by the assessee is liable to be taxed under the capital gains.
In view of the discussion aforesaid, our answer to question No. l is in the negative, against the Department and in favour of the assessee and that sum of Rs.39,000 has to be allowed as business loss. Our answer to the second question is in the negative and in favour of the assessee. As a necessary consequence, our answer to question No.3 is in the negative and against the Department. No order as to costs. Counsel's fee Rs.1,000.
M. B. A./1179/FC ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.