Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras vs Peirce, Leslie and Co. Ltd., Kozhikode

Rajagopalan, J.

(1) Of the three questions referred to this court under S. 66(1) of the Act, the first two were answered against the assessee in the order of this

court dated 3rd September 1958 (reported in Pierce, Leslie and Co. Ltd., Kozhikode Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, . The answer

to the third of the questions was reserved, and by the order dated 3rd September 1958, a further statement of the case was called for from the

Tribunal, which has since been submitted.

(2) The entire claim of the assessee was allowed by the Tribunal, and even at the earlier stage the assessee did not dispute the fact that the entirety

of its claim, though upheld by the Tribunal, could not be sustained. The claim in the proceedings put forward by the assessee before us was a much

more limited one, the details of which were set out in the order dated 3rd September 1958. It is the correctness of that claim we have to decide on

the basis of the further statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal.

(3) The first item which we have to consider is the claim of assessee, that for the first two chargeable accounting periods a sum of � 27857

constituted ""reserves"" within the meaning of the rule, and that for the next two chargeable accounting periods the amount under this head was �

9812-0-5.

(4) The relevant dates were the commencement of the respective chargeable accounting periods, 1-4-1946, 1-7-1946, 1-4-1947 and 1-7-1947.

Even if we take the passing by the general body of shareholders of the profit and loss accounts submitted by the Directors as evidence of the

appropriation of the various amounts to the various heads shown in the profit and loss account, the real question we have to consider is, whether

inclusion of any amount under the head, ""capital profit account"", amounted to authorisation of a reserve fund, giving the extended meaning to the

word ""reserve"" as explained in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City Vs. The Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., and in

Commissioner of Income Tax and Business Profits Tax, Madras Vs. Vasantha Mills Limited, .

A copy of the capital profits account has been marked as Annexure Z. With reference to the first two chargeable accounting periods the position

was, that a sum of � 31,646,-4-0 was included in the capital profits account prior to 31-3-1946, and that inclusion must be deemed to have

been authorised both for the first chargeable accounting period and the second chargeable accounting period. We find from Annexure Z that a

portion of the profits was taken over to this head of account, what apparently in the opinion of the assessee was capital profits.

How an assessee chose to treat a particular item of profit, either as capital or as trading receipt, could not obviously conclude the question, and so

mere inclusion in the head of the capital profit account with nothing more cannot, in the circumstances of this case, be proof of appropriation for

any specific purpose. Specific evidence as to the nature of this particular fund shown as the capital profit account was not furnished except what

appears ex facie the account. We have no other material on which to rest our conclusions. We find that while several items were credited to the

account, items which apparently in the view of the assessee were capital receipts, the only out-going was by way of distribution to shareholders.

Learned counsel for the assessee conceded that what was paid out of this ""capital profit account"" was further dividends to the deferred

shareholders. Thus on the material placed before us, the only conclusion we can come to is, that a portion of the profits of the company was taken

over to the capital profit account only to be available for a deferred distribution of dividends to shareholders. If that be the real position of the

capital profit account, it would only mean a portion of the profits were kept undistributed, and merely because they were included in a separate

head of account they were not taken out of what was called ""amorphous and undistributed profits"" profits available for the further distribution. In

this case distribution was deferred, and that by itself with nothing more cannot make the amount so set apart a reserve within the meaning of rule 2.

(5) Therefore, the assessee''s claim that whatever was found in the capital profit account, whether that claim was based upon what was credited or

upon what was retained as balance at the end of the relevant period, was a reserve within the meaning of rule 2 will have to be negatived. As we

said, it only retained a portion of the undistributed profits; only it was put under a separate head in the balance sheet.

(6) Similarly the amount of � 219-3-3 shown in the first two chargeable accounting periods and � 30-7-4 shown in the third and the fourth

accounting periods constituted only a portion of the undistributed profits. That they were shown in the profit and loss account did not make them

any, the less undistributed profits; and that have been shown under a separate head of account by itself and with nothing more cannot be viewed as

constituting them a reserve for future use for any specified purpose. So that portion of the claim also of the assessee will have to be negatived.

(7) That leaves only one other item for consideration. With reference to the second, third and the fourth chargeable accounting periods the

assessee claimed that a sum of � 19,236 constituted a reserve within the meaning of rule 2. This was shown in the balance sheet under the head

excess profits tax post-war refund suspense account"", and as the balance sheet was approved by the shareholders, the appropriation to this head

of account must be deemed to have been authorised. So if this head of account had been authorised before the relevant dates with reference to

each of the chargeable accounting periods, and if such appropriation constituted a reserve, the assessee would be entitled to the relief of abatement

for which rule 2 provided.

(8) Before going into the nature of this head of account, we have to point out that with reference to the second chargeable accounting period

commencing from 1-7-1946 the position was there was no meeting of the general body prior to 1-7-1946, which means there was no

authorisation by the general body, which alone was competent, before the relevant date 1-7-1946. So even if the inclusion of this amount in the

suspense account is accepted as proof of constituting a reserve, the claim of the assessee with reference to the second chargeable accounting

period from 1-7-1946 to 30-6-1947 will have to be negatived on the ground that prior to 1-7-1946 there was no authorisation by the general

body of shareholders.

(9) There was certainly a meeting of the general body prior to 1-4-1947, and the requisite authority with reference to the third and the fourth

chargeable accounting periods was there. The question that remains is, whether inclusion of this amount under this head of account can be taken as

proof of constituting a reserve.

(10) The nature of the fund included under the head, ""excess profits tax post-war refund suspense account"", is to be gathered with reference to Ss.

39 and 40 of the Finance Act II of 1945 of the United Kingdom. As the learned counsel for the assessee pointed out, S. 40 of the Act defined

with precision the use to which the refund ordered by the British Treasury could be put by the tax payer who got the refund S. 40 prohibited

certain uses and ordained certain uses to which alone the amount refunded could be put. We can briefly say that Sec. 40 required the amount so

refunded to be utilised for development purposes. It could not be used for instance either for the issue of shares or for the declaration of dividends.

(11) Thus the position was that whatever was given as a refund of excess profits tax in the United Kingdom was available only for use for a limited

purpose, and the assessee was under a statutory liability to utilise this amount only for those purposes. Therefore, when the amount was refunded,

it was shown under a separate head of account as excess profits tax post-war refund suspense account. It meant the amount was held in reserve,

but in suspense, to be utilised for the statutory purposes as directed by S. 40 of the English Finance Act of 1945. Therefore the very inclusion of

this amount under this head of account would be proof of an appropriation for a specified purpose, the purpose specified being statutory, but

nonetheless a purpose specified. When that purpose specified was further authorised by the shareholders, the fact that they were under a statutory

liability to do so did not make the authority of the shareholders any-theless effective. Thus the requirements were satisfied to constitute the fund a

reserve within the meaning of rule 2, and for the assessee to claim abatement with reference to that amount.

(12) In our opinion, the assessee is entitled to claim a relief of abatement with reference to this sum of � 19236 with reference to the third and

the fourth chargeable accounting periods, that is, 1-4-1947 to 30-6-1947 and 1-7-1947 to 30-6-1948. The rest of the claim which the Tribunal

allowed will have to stand disallowed, and the other sums will have to be brought to tax.

(13) In form our answer to question No. 3 is, the credit balance in the capital profits account, profit and loss account and excess profits tax post-

war refund suspense account did not constitute reserves within the meaning of rule 2(1), except to this extent, that with reference to the third and

the fourth chargeable accounting periods alone the sum of � 19236, which was included in the post-war refund suspense account, did constitute

a reserve within the meaning of rule 2(1).

(14) As the assessee has substantially failed in this reference, he will pay the costs of the department. Counsel''s fee Rs. 250.

(15) Reference answered accordingly.