AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajagopalan, J.—The question referred to this Court u/s 66 (1) of the Income Tax Act, ""Whether the payment of Malayan Estate Duty of
Rs. 3,29,746 is a proper deduction out of the earlier unassessed profits of the assessee from 1-4-1933"", arose out of the assessment proceedings
for the year 1949-50, the corresponding previous year having ended on 12-4-1949.
The headquarters of the business which the assessee''s family carried on was at Paganeri in Ramanathapuram district, and it had branches in
Burma and Singapore among other places. The accepted basis for assessing the Hindu undivided family, of which the assessee Annamalai was a
member, was that it was resident and ordinarily resident. In the year of account that ended on 12-4-1949 the assessee received as remittances
from abroad a total sum of Rs. 1,25,238 of which Rs. 1,25,034 came from Singapore and the balance of Rs. 204 from Burma. Rs. 80,652
represented the profits that had accrued to the assessee at Singapore in the year of account.
There was no dispute about the liability of the assessee to be assessed to tax on that sum u/s 4 (i) (b) (ii) of the Act. The Income Tax Officer
upheld the claim of the assessee that the balance of the remittance, Rs. 44,586 fell outside the scope of Section 4 (l) (b) (ii). The Income Tax
Officer recorded :
The representative raised the question of availability of profits. This has been examined. It is found that there are no prior unassessed and
unremitted profits available, Hence this will be treated as from capital.
To appreciate the finding of the Income Tax Officer it. Is necessary to set out some more facts. The figures themselves were never in dispute.
Annexure-A to the statement of the case showed that the balance of the unassessed and unremitted profits of the assessee between the years 1933
and 1839 at Singapore amounted to Rs. 3,38,576. The claim of the assessee was that this sum had been expended at Singapore itself, and no
portion 6f that was available to him for the remittances made in the year of account.
That was the claim the Income Tax Officer upheld. The assessee''s grandfather died on 4-13-1931, and the assessee''s adoptive father died on
10-12-1945. Estate duties were payable at Singapore, and a total sum of Rs. 3,29,746 was paid by the assessee''s family at Singapore. Though
the question as framed by the Tribunal is only limited to this amount, the further claim of the assessee was, that there were two other items of
expenditure to be taken into account in deciding whether any portion of the profits that had accrued to the assessee''s family between 1933 and
1939 was available for remittance in the year of account.
The assessee claimed that a sum of Rs. 89,053 had been expended abroad, though this expenditure would not have been allowable had there been
a computation u/s 10(2) of the Act. The assessee also claimed that Rs. 73,249 represented un-absorbed losses covered by the special scheme
sanctioned by the Central Board of Revenue.
The Commissioner exercised his revisional power suo motu and came to the conclusion, that the sum of Rs. 44,586 which the Income Tax
Officer had excluded, was also assessable to tax in the assessment year 1949-50. The Commissioner recorded;
The correct legal position under the Amendment Act of 1939 however, is that it is for the assessee to prove that the remittances are out of capital
and not profits. The learned counsel has, however, made no attempt to prove this, his entire stand being based on merely legal grounds. It is well
settled that prima facie remittance is out of profit subject to the proof by the assessee to the contrary for all the facts are always within his special
knowledge. It should not therefore be difficult for him to prove that the remittance was out of capital.
Unless therefore this presumption is firmly rebutted by the petitioner with the help of account entries or other evidence the remittance has to be
treated as profit undiminished by any capital expenditure. Unfortunately the Income Tax Officer instead of ascertaining whether the remittance was
out of capital or profits, went on to determine the profits available for remittance. However, as the assessee failed to establish that it was out of
capital and the onus was entirely or him to do so, that remittance should have been deemed to come out of profits.
The assessee appealed without success to the Tribunal. With reference to the claim for the loss -- which does not really arise for consideration
by us now, if we have regard to the frame of the question referred to us--the finding of the Tribunal was :
......in our opinion, earlier losses necessarily encroach into the capital, deplete it to that extent, and thereby get extinguished. Such losses cannot
consequently be available as set off for subsequent profits.
With reference to the payments towards estate duty the Tribunal recorded :
The contention that estate duty payments are available as a set off against the computed profit fund, need not tarry us long. Estate duty is clearly a
charge, against capital and in no sense against profits. It is the theoretical profits of the foreign business that are computed for availability, and the
question whether the same cash inflow representing profits is utilised for the purpose of the discharge of this liability has therefore, no place in the
present discussion. Estate duty is clearly not a charge against profits and consequently not a deduction against the fund."" What Section 4 (1) (b)
(iii) of the Act lays down is :
Subject to the provisions of this Act the total income of any previous year of any person includes all income, profits and gains from whatever
source derived which--having accrued or arisen to him without the taxable territories before the beginning of such year and after the 1st day of
April, 1933, are brought into or received in the taxable territories by him during such year."" That really it is the period between l-4-1933 and 31-3-
1939 during which the income, profits or gains should have accrued or arisen outside the taxable territories was not in dispute. The contention of
the learned Advocate General, who appeared for the assessee, was that it was the factual existence or unexpended profits of that period that was
relevant in deciding whether a given remittance fell within the scope of Section 4 (1) (b) (iii) and not a notional or fictitious fund made up of the
profits that arose or accrued abroad minus what had been remitted in fact out of these profits to the taxable territories at any point of time, even
after 1-4-1939.
The learned counsel for the respondent urged that the actual availability of profits for remittance was not a relevant factor. He contended that, if
profits accrued or arose abroad, and those profits were not computed for taxation under the Indian Income Tax Act and were not taxed -- that
was the position between 1933 and 1939 -- any amount brought into the taxable territories by the assessee during the accounting year
subsequently to 1-4-1939 should be presumed to be a remittance out of these profits, unless the assessee proved that it was a remittance out of
the capital he held abroad. The learned counsel conceded that it was a rebuttable presumption, but he pointed out that in this case the finding was
that the assessee did not offer any evidence to show from what source abroad he received the sum of Rs. 44,586.
The learned Advocate General was right when he pointed out that Section (4) (1) (b) (iii) did not enact any legal fiction. Is any presumption of
law permissible, and if so, under what circumstances, is the next question.
The basis for any presumption should be, as the learned Advocate General urged, the normal course of conduct of a prudent man of business.
He would rather meet any call for expenditure out of his Income than deplete his capital, if the amount of the unexpended income still available to
him is sufficient to meet that expenditure, and if there was no other factor to be considered.
Let us examine the case of the assessee from that view point. The profits that the assessee had earned at Singapore between 1933 and 1939
minus what he remitted to India amounted to Rs. 3,38,576. Between 1-4-1933 and 12-4-1949 the assessee had to make two payments towards
the estate duty payable at Singapore totalling Rs. 3,29,476. He paid those amounts. There was no evidence to show that he paid them out of his
capital held at Singapore. There was no evidence either that he paid them from out of the computed sum of Rs. 3,38,576. He just paid. The
learned Advocate General claimed that there was no accretion to the capital of the assessee at Singapore in 1949 compared to the position in
1933, and that in fact there was a diminution.
That aspect of the case does not appear to have been examined by the Tribunal. We shall proceed on the basis that there was no evidence either
way. If the assessee was a prudent business-man--and there was no evidence to show that he was not--the assessee would have met the charges
not from his capital but from his accumulated income. If that is the presumption that should prevail, the answer to the question referred to this Court
should be in favour of the assessee.
What is taxable u/s 4 (1) (b) (iii) of the Act is only the income remitted and not any remittance from capital. If an assessee kept separate
accounts for his capital and income abroad and proved that a given remittance was from the capital, that is not taxable. Kneen v. Martin, (1934)
19 Tax Cas 33, was a case of that kind. If the assessee held both capital and profits abroad--we are concerned with the profits that accrued or
arose abroad between 1933 and 1939--the Income Tax Act did not impose any obligation upon the assessee to meet any given expenditure either
from out of the capital or from out of his profits. His discretion was unhampered by any statute.
He was not bound to find(?) the profits and keep them for remittance to the taxable territories, without expending any portion of those profits
abroad. Payments towards estate duty constituted an item of expenditure. The assessee could make the payments out of his profits. The same
principle would apply to any other item of expenditure. No doubt it was held in V. RAMASWAMY AYYANGAR AND ANOTHER Vs.
COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax, MADRAS., and in V. Ramaswami Ayyangar and K.R. Subramania Ayyar, Receivers to the Estate of late
Rm. A.R.A. R Rm. Arunachalam Chettiar Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, , that payments towards estate duties would not fall within the
scope of Section 10 (2) (xv) of the Act. But then, there was no need for computation u/s 10 in the case of profits that accrued or arose abroad
between 1933 and 1939.
If the assessee proved that he had paid the estate duty out of his profits, to that extent there would be adiminution, in fact, of his profits which he
held abroad. Of course, if there was proof, that he had made the payments out of his capital and the capital to that extent was diminished, the
profits would still be available for any remittance that he subsequently effected. Again it would be a factual position that would arise for
consideration. Such were the contentions of the learned Advocate General.
In the present case we are proceeding on the assumption that there was no evidence to prove (1) that the assessee paid estate duties out of his
capital or (2) that he paid it out of his profits, and further that there was no evidence to prove that the capital he held abroad was intact. There was
proof that he had paid the estate duties amounting to Rs. 3,29,746. The contention of the Advocate General was that to that extent the profits
available for remittance in subsequent years should be held to have been depleted, and that there was no room for any other presumption on that
point.
In Ramanathan Chettiar v. Commr. of Income Tax, 2 ITC 348, a Full; Bench Of this Court laid down at page 354:
As decided by this Court in the case of in re Murugappa Chettiar. 2 ITC 139; AIR 1926 Mad 767, following the case of Scottish Provident
Institution v. Allan, 1903 AC 129: 4 Tax Gas 591, where there are remittances of money from foreign parts and the circumstances are such as to
show that they may possibly be towards the profits, the burden of proving that it was capital lies on the assessee.
This as well as other decision followed the principle laid down in, 1903 AC 129, and we shall examine the scope of that decision. We should
however like to record at this stage that in, 2 ITC 348, the factual existence of available profits abroad, to which the remittances could be traced,
was not in dispute.
in 1903 AC 129, the facts established were as follows: Before 1885 the Institution had no fund in Australia, and it was consequently necessary
to remit sums from the United Kingdom for purposes of meeting the loans made in Australia. All sums so remitted were against specific investments
and were so marked at the time. No sums were remitted from Scotland to Australia for investment after 1890. The interest accruing on the
Australian investments prior to 1893 was not brought home, and the Institution''s Melbourne representatives reinvested such interest in Australia of
it fell due. The total amount sent from Scotland to Australia upto 31-12-1898 was �1,504,000. The interest that accrued on that sum invested in
Australia upto 31-12-1898 was �1.034,707. The total remittances from Australia upto 31-12-1898 came to � 7,16,500. Therefore the total
funds remaining in Australia as on 31-12-1898 was �1,822,207.
The original capital sent- out from Scotland, it should be remembered, was less, � 1,504,000. The total amount remitted in 1898 was
�217.350 which was included in the total of � 716,500 It was the liability of this sum of �217,350 remitted during 1898, to be assessed to
English Income Tax that was the subject matter of the litigation that ended with the judgment of the House of Lords. The learned Advocate
General pointed out that factually the amount available in Australia in 1808 was considerably in excess of the capital invested by the Scottish
Provident Institution in Australia. The balance constituted income, the Interest that had accrued on the capital sums sent out from Scotland and
invested in Australia.
The Court of Session held that out of the remittances of �217,350, in 1898, a sum of �5,000 did not represent income and was not liable
to be taxed. The Commissioner had found that this sum was in part repayment of a debt, the principal of which was � 70.000, and this amount
of � 5,000 was cabled direct by the horrower''s solicitor in Australia to the institution in England and never passed through the Institution''s
Australian representative''s hands. The Lord President observed:
It (� 5.000) was never inmixed with the funds of the institution in Australia, but was sent to this country by the borrower as and for payment of
his capital debt.
That was a case therefore of positive proof that � 5,000 came out of the capital that had been in vested in Australia. With reference to the
balance of the remittances in 1898 the Lord President ob served at page 419 :
When, however, the question is, whether particular remittances, the real origin and character of which as capital or interest are not definitely
established, should be regarded as consisting of capital or of interest, the fact that the amounts were entered in the accounts of the institution, and
treated as income in this country, may be admissible evidence upon that question. It further appears to me that, under the circumstances, indefinite
remittances to this country must be presumed to consist of interest, not of capital, ''so long as the amount of capital remitted to Australia for
investment still remains invested there""'' (underlined by us (here in '' )).
The scope of the presumption was limited by the Lord President himself. Factually there were profits available for remittance. Factually the capital
invested it. Australia remained intact. The learned Advocate General was right in his contention, that in applying the presumption laid down by the
Lord President the established facts with reference to which that rule of law was laid down should not be ignored. It was the same principle that
Lord McLaren laid down in that case at page 420:
......the sound principle is the one announced in your Lordships (Lord President) opinion, that the source of the fund remitted, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, must be determined according to the ordinary course of business in dealing with uninvested furds"".
In the case of the assessee. even if his capital at Singapore was intact--there was not even evidence of that and further as we pointed out there was
no evidence of any increase while the claim of the assessee was that there was diminution -- but, if In fact no profits were available for remittance
from Singapore, there could be no basis for any presumption, that the remittance in the year of account was from a non-existent source.
The factual position in (1934) 19 Tax Cas 33, was as follows : The assessee was domiciled in the United States but she lived in the united
Kingdom. She owned securities, stocks and shares in America, the income arising from which during the years 1930-31 and 1931-32 was paid
Into an account called the ""income"" account, one of two separate bank accounts she had with a bank in New York, and was later spent or
invested wholly in America. No income arising in America was ever credited to the assessee''s other accounts called the ""capital"" account with the
New York bank. Into that account were paid from time to time the proceeds of sales of investments, and out of it were purchased new
investments.
During the years 1930-31 and 1931-32 certain securities were sold and the proceeds of the safe were, with the exception of one case in which the
proceeds were credited temporarily to the ""capital"" account at the New York Bank, remitted direct by the stock-brokers to the credit of the
assessee''s account at London, the amounts so received being used for the assessee''s living expenses. The assessee contended that the sums
received by her from America were remittances of capital, and the fact that income arise to her in America from securities in the same period did
not make the said remittances assessable to Income Tax. That contention was upheld. Finlay J. observed :
The position which arises appears to me to be simply this. The respondent has got income in America; she has got investments in America. She
does not, to use a phrase which has been used by Judges of much authority in more than one case, in forma specific remit any of the income. She
does cause the proceeds of the investment to be remitted in forma specifica........ I think, it is, to a large extent, a question of fact Whether the true
view is that this was a remittance of income or on account of income...... If I rightly followed the argument of the Crown, it was this, that if you
found foreign income and if you found remittances from abroad, then you could tax the foreign income, measuring it by the remittances. I cannot
think that, that is right.
In the Court of. Appeal Slesser, L. J., observed at page 50 :
The Attorney General has pressed upon us this consideration, that the Commissioners have said that they considered that in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, there is a presumption that to the extent to which there is income arising in any country remittances received from that
country are income and income within the charge to tax, but that such presumption may be rebutted. The learned Attorney General argues that
there is no such presumption. He points out that it is not a presumption merely of business practice.... but that, as a matter of presumption as the
language is there used by the Commissioners, if there be any presumption at all it is in favour of the subject and that the Crown have to prove that
they are entitled to exact the tax. He goes on to argue that in so far as there is no presumption,....;.. it would put an impossible obligation upon the
Crown and make a very complicated investigation before the Commissioners in any particular case to ascertain whether this would be capital or
not.
Dealing with that argument the learned Judge observed:
I am inclined to agree with him that there is no presumption arising one way or the other.... It seems to me that this matter is just such a matter of
fact as the Commissioners are eminently suited to inquire into. They have Inquired into it in this case and they have rebutted the presumption which
is alleged.
In (1934) 19 Tax Cas 33, the position was there was income available in America, but no remittance was made out of that income. Even when
income was available, Slesser, L. J. was of the view, that there was no room for any presumption either way, that the remittance was either out of
capital or out of income. But it should be remembered, that in that case it was found as a fact by the Commissioner that the remittance in question
had been out of the assessee''s capital fund. - .
In Bipin Lal Kuthiala Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab, , the assesses realised a sum of Rs 1,50,000 in the accounting year 1943-44
by sale of timber for Rs. 1,91,000 in Jubbal, which was then a native State. Out of this sum he received Rs. 1,25,000 in cash in Jubbal, Rs.
29,000 in cash in British India and Rs. 3,000 by adjustment by payment in British India to a creditor of the assessee. The profits of the transaction
were computed to be Rs 18,758 The question was whether the remittance of Rs. 32,000 included the entire profits earned, that is, Rs. 18.758.
The question was answered in the affirmative, and their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed at pages 5 & 6 (of ITR): (at pp. 638-639 of
AIR) :
The profit on the sale of timber in 1942-43 has since been ascertained at Rs. 18,758........... There being this profit, as eventually ascertained, the
presumption, according to the cases referred to in the judgment under appeal, will be that the remittances of money from foreign business to British
India must be of profits, unless the contrary were shown by the appellant.
Their Lordships further observed :
The appellant cannot question that there was, in fact, profit which was less than the amount remitted. It was open to him to adduce evidence to
show that he was winding up his business and reducing the establishment or was not in need of so much moneys to be invested as capital in his
business and, therefore, was remitting his capital which became unnecessary for the Jubbal business. This he failed to do. In the circumstances, the
appellant did not discharge the onus that was on him and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was quite correct in coming to the conclusion that the
sum of Rs. 32,000 included the profits made on the sale of timber for Rs. 1,91,000 in the accounting year 1942-43.
These observations must be correlated to what was found in that case, that factually a sum of Rs. 18,758 which constituted profits was available
for remittance in the year of account from Jubbal to the taxable territories.
GANESHILAL AND SONS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax, U. P. and C. P., is much nearer the claim of the assessee in the
proceedings before us. During the four years ending with October 20, 1938, the firm of Ganeshilal and Sons made a profit of Rs. 1,50,243 at
Cairo. It expended a sum of Rs. 1,59,558 at Cairo. Out of this sum, Rs. 1,24,685 would have been admissible expenditure had there been a
computation under 8. 10 (2) of the Income Tax Act. In the year of account ending with 20th March 1938 the assessee brought into British India a
sum of Rs. 50,258 from Cairo. The learned Judges recorded :
The solution of the problem as to whether the sum of Rs. 50,528 brought into British India was a remittance of profit or not would depend, in this
case, upon the answer to two questions: firstly what was the amount of profits and gains which accrued or arose to the assessee from the Cairo
business; secondly, whether the entire amount of such profits and gains was available to the assessee for the purpose of being remitted to"" British
India.
The learned Judges proceeded to observeer ""It is open to an assessee who earns income in a foreign country to spend the same in any manner
he likes and not to remit it to British India, The liability to tax in respect of such Income, however, rests upon the fact that the income is brought or
received in British India and not upon the fact that it accrues to the assessee in a foreign country. The assessee being at liberty to spend the whole
or part of his foreign income outside British India, it is always a relevant question whether any and what part of the foreign Income has been
expended by the assessee before the remittance in question is made to British India. If the entire income is spent by the assessee before any
remittance is made it cannot be said that the remittance is one of profits.
Now it is not necessary that an assessee should spend his Income only after it has been ascertain for Income Tax purposes. He is at liberty to and
it either after ascertaining it in accordance with the Income Tax Act, or before it is ascertained in that manner. In a case where the trading receipts
exceed the total amount of expenditure and there is consequently a balance in the hands of -the assessee, the money spent prior to the
determination of the income (for Income Tax purposes), should, in our opinion, be treated as having been spent out of the income. That part of the
income which had been spent before the remittances in question were made ceased to be income, and therefore, could not be brought into British
India as such.
We are in entire agreement with the principle laid down in the passage quoted above, though the learned counsel for the respondent invited us
to differ from the learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court. The learned Judges stated:
Thus, for the purpose of determining the question whether the entire income chargeable under the Income Tax Act was available at the time of the
remittance to British India, expenditure, although not admissible u/s 30 (2) of the Income Tax Act, must be taken into consideration.
It was upon GANESHILAL AND SONS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax, U. P. and C. P., , that the learned authors based their
statement in Income Tax Act by Kanga and Balkivala, 3rd Edn. page 328 :
In computing the amount of foreign profits available at the time of remittance, the actual total expenditure incurred abroad and not merely the
expenditure admissible u/s 10 (2) should be deducted. If the entire income is spent by the assessee before any remittance is made, it cannot be said
that the remittance is one of profits."" That, in our opinion, is the correct summing up of the law on the point.
Duke of Roxburghe''s Executors v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, (1938) 20 Tax Cas 711 , was one of the cases cited before us. It is
enough to observe that, if the factual position as ascertained by the commissioners of the actual availability of funds to which the remittances could
be traced is taken into account, there was no departure from the principles laid down in the earlier cases.
What would have been the position had there been an accretion to the assessee''s capital at Singapore, added to the capital from out of the
profits earned abroad, before making a given remittance, does not arise for consideration in this case, and we therefore express no opinion on such
a question.
The Tribunal virtually held that computation u/s 10 (2) of the Act should conclude the question at issue, and that payments towards estate
duties at Singapore would not fall within the scope of Section 10 (2) of the Act. We hold that the factum of expenditure should not have been
ignored and that the view taken by the Income Tax Officer, that in fact no portion of the profits earned between 1933 and 1939 was available for
remittance during the year of account, was the correct one. The Tribunal, it may be remembered, decline to take note of unabsorbed losses
covered by the special scheme.
We have already pointed out that the consideration of the correctness of that finding does not, at any rate, strictly fall within the scope of the
question we have to answer. Nonetheless, we have to point out that the extreme form in which the Tribunal formulated its proposition does not!
appear to us to be sound in law. The Tribunal recorded:
........ in our opinion earlier losses necessarily encroach into the capital, deplete to that extent and thereby got extinguished. Such losses cannot
consequently be available as set off for subsequent profits.
That would mean that if in any year a business man sustained a loss, to that extent his capital would be diminished for purposes of computing the
next year''s profits. Put in that form, it should be obvious that that is not the scheme of the Act; at any rate, with reference to losses and profits from
business that accrued within the taxable territories. Set off is a statutory right quite distinct from any necessity to depute capital.
In view of what we have said above, there can be only one answer to the question as it has been framed. The necessity or propriety of a
deduction u/s 10 (2) of the Act does not arise. The real problem we have to discuss was, whether in the circumstances of the case, remittances to
the extent of Rs. 44,586 could be presumed to have come out of the profits the assessee family earned abroad between 1933 and 1939. To view
the same problem from a different angle, the question was whether in the circumstances of this case, the payment of Rs. 3,29,746 could be
presumed to have been out of those profits.
Such a question is necessarily one of fact to be answered with reference to the circumstances of each case, and with reference to the normal
course of conduct of a prudent man of business. If factually there were profits available and if factually the assessee''s capital held abroad was
intact, the assessee could be presumed to have met his charges abroad from out of his profits. It would really be more a case of inference from the
proved facts. Whether it is proved that in fact the charges or payment of the estate duties abroad were met out of the profits, or whether it is
presumed that the charges were so met, the position would be the same. To that extent they would cease to be unexpended profits.
It is only an existent source that could be viewed as a possible source to which a given remittance could be traced. If money is expended or is
presumed to have been expended, to that extent that source would be depleted, and if the depletion was in full it would toe non-existent. There can
be no basis for any presumption that a remittance came from a non-existent source.
We answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to the costs of this reference. Counsel''s
fee Rs. 250/-.