Commissioner of Income Tax, Excess Profits Tax, Madras vs Modern Theatres Ltd., Salem

Satyanarayana Rao, J.—The two questions that were referred to us by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal u/s 66(1) of the Indian income

tax Act are as follows:

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the film hire derived by the assessee under agreements which provided for fixed hire

charges in respect of exhibition of films in Indian States is not exempt from Excess Profits Tax as profits accruing or arising in the Indian States

within the meaning of the third proviso to Section 5 of the Excess Profits Tax Act.

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the films hire derived by the assessee under agreements which provided for hire at a

percentage of the collections in respect of the exhibition of films in Indian. States is not exempt from Excess Profits Tax, as profit accruing or

arising in the Indian States within the meaning of the third proviso to Section 5 of the Excess Profits Tax Act.

The assessee is a public limited company whose registered office is at Salem and is incorporated in British India. It carried on the business of

producing and distributing aims. The films are distributed to exhibitors within, and also without, British India under two classes of contracts,

specimen copies of which are annexed to the case stated by the Appellate Tribunal as A and B. The films are given on hire for exhibition either for

a fixed sum agreed to be paid by the exhibitor, or for a percentage of the collections made by the-exhibitor at the time of the exhibition of the

picture. The assessee claimed that under the third proviso to Section 5 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, the income he received by exhibiting films in

the Indian States under both the types of contracts was exempt from liability to pay excess profits tax. This, contention was upheld by the Tribunal,

differing from the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Hence this reference. The crucial question that falls to be determined is whether the whole of

the profits accrued, or arose, in an Indian State or not.

It is obvious, as found by the Appellate Tribunal, that in respect of contracts entered into on percentage basis the share of the profits due to the

assessee was not payable until the picture was exhibited and collections were made in the presence of a representative of the assessee. The

percentage was then paid to the representative of the assessee at the place where the picture was exhibited, i.e., in the native state. So far as the

lump sum contracts are concerned, it is also found that the assessee did not part with the picture until the amount was paid to him at the time of the

delivery of the picture in the native State, either by sending the railway receipt by V.P.P. or by tendering the film directly to the exhibitor, or

perhaps even by sending the railway receipt to a bank for collection. Whichever method was adopted by the assessee, it leaves no room for doubt

that until the picture was delivered to the exhibitor, the exhibitor did not pay a single pie to the assessee. On these facts it was contended

strenuously on behalf of the department by Mr. Rama Rao Sahib,, the learned counsel for the Income Tax Commissioner, that, as the contracts

which are the source of the profit were entered into In British India, it must be held that in respect of both the types of contracts, the profits

accrued in British India and not in a native State. Having regard to the-terms of the contracts and the findings of the Appellate Tribunal, it is

difficult, If not impossible, to accept this contention. Under the contract, the assessee gets practically nothing except an obligation on the part of the

exhibitor to receive the film when tendered to him and to exhibit it subject to the conditions of the contract. Money does not become payable and

the assessee had no right to demand any payment before the film was actually delivered to the exhibitor, in these circumstances nothing accrues to

the assessee until the film was put in the possession of the exhibitor with a view to exploit the same, and that was done wholly in a native State. It

therefore follows that in respect of both the types of contracts the profits of the business accrued wholly in a native State, and they are therefore

exempt under the third proviso to Section 5 of the Excess Profits Tax Act. It is unnecessary for us to consider whether really the second question

was, or was not, pending before the Income Tax Commissioner at the time of the reference, a question which was attempted to be argued by Mr.

Rajah Aiyar, the learned counsel for the respondent, as in our view under both the types of contract the profits accrued entirely in a native state.

Mr. Kama Rao Sahib then attempted to raise the further question, that in any event the profits should be apportioned between British India and

the native Suite under the third proviso to Section 5 of the Excess Profits Tax Act. We searched in vain to find any trace of this argument before

any of the Income Tax authorities who had to deal with this matter, it is not a question which has been referred to us by the Appellate Tribunal, nor

did the Income Tax Commissioner ask for a reference of this question to this Court. It is further Claimed by the learned counsel for the income tax

Commissioner that the questions actually referred to us are wide enough to cover the question of apportionment, for it is said that it is open to us to

and that not the whole of the profits but only a part of the profits accrued and arose in a native State. That may be so; but we have to understand

the questions referred to us in the light of the statement of facts and the statement of the case which have been the basis of the reference to this

Court. As pointed out by this Court in ''Abboy Chetty v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras'' 1947 2 Mad. L.J. 215 the question must arise

out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. It can arise out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal only if the order of the Appellate Tribunal

discloses that the question was raised before it. In the present case a perusal of the order of the Appellate Tribunal discloses that the only question

that was argued was with reference to the place of accrual of the profits, whether they were wholly in a native state or they accrued in British India.

The question of apportionment was not raised before the Appellate Tribunal, not to speak of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In these

circumstances it is impossible to hold that it is a question which arises out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal and which is covered by the

questions that are actually referred to us. It will be wholly inconvenient to allow such a question to be raised for the first time before us without ""an

investigation of the facts and also without an apportionment of the profits by the department. In these circumstances we must answer the questions

referred to us by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and in the affirmative. As the commissioner of Income Tax has failed in this reference, he

must pay the costs of the assessee which we fix at Rs. 250.