1967 (5) TMI 12 - SC - Income Tax

Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that although the question presented before it was no doubt a question of law - Tribunal was not right in rejecting reference application on question of applicability of s. 23A of 1922 Act - Revenue s appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues:
1. Refusal to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
2. Application of section 23A to a company's dividend declaration.
3. Interpretation of deemed or fictional income under the Income-tax Act.
4. Dismissal of petition by the High Court without reasons.

Analysis:

The Supreme Court judgment addressed the issue of the refusal to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The case involved an investment company that disclosed a net income but did not declare any dividend due to certain reasons. The Income-tax Officer applied section 23A, which was contested by the company. The Appellate Tribunal vacated the order under section 23A, considering the dividend as fictional or notional income. The department argued that the declaration of dividend made it actual income, but the Tribunal disagreed, stating that such dividends were deemed or fictional income under the Act. The Tribunal's conclusion was that a mere declaration of dividend does not necessarily make it the property of the trader for profit calculation purposes. The Commissioner applied for a statement of the case to be drawn up, but the Appellate Tribunal dismissed it, citing a previous court decision. The Supreme Court found that the question raised by the Commissioner did arise from the Tribunal's order and directed the Tribunal to state the case for reference to the High Court.

The judgment also delved into the application of section 23A to a company's dividend declaration. The company's reasons for not declaring a dividend were considered by the Income-tax Officer, who rejected the argument that the dividend was appropriated by the company's creditors. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision, emphasizing that the reasons provided by the company were irrelevant to section 23A. However, the Appellate Tribunal took a different stance, viewing the dividend as fictional or notional income and overturning the order under section 23A. The Tribunal's decision was based on the understanding that a mere declaration of dividend does not necessarily translate into actual income for the trader, especially if a significant portion of the dividend had been appropriated by creditors.

Moreover, the judgment explored the interpretation of deemed or fictional income under the Income-tax Act. The department argued that the declaration of dividend made the amount actual income for the assessee, but the Tribunal disagreed, stating that such dividends were considered deemed or fictional income under the Act. The Tribunal's reasoning was that the mere declaration of dividend did not automatically make it the trader's property for profit calculation purposes, especially if a substantial portion of the dividend had been appropriated by creditors.

Additionally, the judgment highlighted the dismissal of the petition by the High Court without providing reasons. The High Court's lack of reasoning for dismissing the petition raised concerns, leading the Supreme Court to accept the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and direct the Appellate Tribunal to state the case for reference to the High Court. The Supreme Court found that the question raised by the Commissioner did indeed arise from the Tribunal's order, emphasizing the need for a proper legal consideration of the issues involved.