1992 (1) TMI 1 - SC - Income Tax

Speculation Loss - contract made to prevent loss in purchase transaction due to price fluctuations - section 24(1) - clause (a) cannot be applied on such speculative transactions

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court were:

- Whether the losses sustained by the assessee in the relevant assessment years arose from speculative transactions as defined under Explanation 2 to Section 24(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.

- If the transactions were speculative, whether they were saved from being treated as speculative transactions by virtue of Clause (a) of the third proviso to Section 24(1), which exempts certain hedging contracts entered into to guard against loss through future price fluctuations in respect of contracts for actual delivery of goods sold.

- The correct interpretation of Clause (a) of the third proviso to Section 24(1), particularly whether contracts of purchase as well as sale can be regarded as "contracts for actual delivery of goods sold" so as to qualify for the exemption.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Whether the transactions in question are speculative transactions under Explanation 2 to Section 24(1)

The legal framework defines a speculative transaction as one where the contract for purchase and sale of any commodity or stocks is settled otherwise than by actual delivery or transfer of the commodity or scrips. Explanation 2 to Section 24(1) corresponds to the definition in Clause 5 of Section 43 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The assessee conceded at all stages that the transactions were speculative within the meaning of Explanation 2. The High Court accepted this concession and did not delve into the scope of Explanation 2. The Court noted that the issue was not whether the transactions were speculative but whether they were saved by Clause (a) of the third proviso.

Thus, the Court treated the transactions as speculative transactions as a matter of fact and law, consistent with the statutory definition and the parties' admissions.

Issue 2: Whether the transactions are saved by Clause (a) of the third proviso to Section 24(1)

The relevant statutory provision exempts from the definition of speculative transactions certain contracts entered into by a manufacturer or merchant to guard against loss through future price fluctuations in respect of contracts for actual delivery of goods sold by him. Clause (a) reads:

"a contract in respect of raw materials or merchandise entered into by a person in the course of his manufacturing or merchanting business to guard against loss through future price fluctuations in respect of his contracts for actual delivery of goods manufactured by him or merchandise sold by him."

The Tribunal interpreted Clause (a) broadly, holding that it covered hedging contracts and that the contracts for actual delivery need not be sale contracts only but could also be purchase contracts. It found that the assessee's transactions were hedging contracts and thus saved by Clause (a).

The High Court disagreed, holding that Clause (a) requires the contract to be entered into to guard against loss through future price fluctuations specifically "in respect of his sale contracts" for actual delivery of goods. It emphasized that the contracts referred to in the latter part of Clause (a) must be contracts of sale for actual delivery, not purchase contracts.

The High Court further held that while a contract-to-contract correlation is not necessary, there must be a clear co-relation between the contracts referred to in the first part of Clause (a) (the hedging contract) and the contracts for actual delivery of goods sold by the assessee. It cautioned against an overly broad interpretation that would cover all purchases and sales entered into with a general view to guard against future loss in the business line.

Applying this interpretation to the facts, the High Court found that the assessee's transactions did not satisfy the requirements of Clause (a). The assessee had entered into purchase contracts with mills, sale contracts with a party, then repurchase contracts with the same party, and finally sold the goods to third parties. The contracts with the first party were settled by paying the difference rather than actual delivery. Hence, the transactions did not constitute contracts "for actual delivery of goods sold" as required.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's interpretation and reasoning. It emphasized that Clause (a) is a proviso to Explanation 2 defining speculative transactions and that the words "contracts for actual delivery of goods" must be given their plain meaning. The Court rejected the Tribunal's view that purchase contracts could be regarded as contracts for actual delivery of goods sold, stating that such an understanding is inconsistent with the scheme and spirit of the Clause.

Thus, the Court held that the transactions entered into by the assessee did not fall within the exemption provided by Clause (a) and were accordingly speculative transactions not saved by the proviso.

Issue 3: Application of law to facts and treatment of competing arguments

The assessee's argument was that the transactions were hedging contracts entered into to guard against loss through price fluctuations in respect of contracts for actual delivery of goods sold, and thus saved by Clause (a). The Revenue contended that the transactions were speculative and not saved by Clause (a).

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument, but the High Court and Supreme Court rejected it based on the strict interpretation of Clause (a). The Courts emphasized the necessity of a co-relation between the hedging contracts and contracts for actual delivery of goods sold, and that the contracts must be for sale, not purchase.

The Courts found that the assessee's transactions involved a series of contracts with different parties, including purchase and resale, and settlement by payment of differences without actual delivery in some contracts, which did not satisfy the statutory requirement.

The Courts thus concluded that the transactions were speculative and not saved by Clause (a), leading to the losses being treated as speculative losses.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- "In this case it has been conceded at all stages by the assessee that the transactions in respect of which the losses in question have occurred are speculative transactions as defined in Explanation 2."

- "For a transaction to come under Clause (a), it should be one entered into by an assessee to guard against loss through future price fluctuations in respect of his sale contracts ... there need not be actual co-relation, contract to contract, but it is sufficient if a transaction either by way of purchase or sale is entered into with a view to guard against any future loss in that particular line of business."

- "But we are inclined to think that we will be doing considerable violence to the language used in Clause (a) if it is understood to cover all cases of purchases and sales entered into by an assessee with a view to guard against his future loss in general in that line of business."

- "The words 'for actual delivery of goods' have evidently been put in designedly... Unless such co-relation exists between two sets of contracts, the Clause is not attracted."

- "The Tribunal was not right in holding that the words 'contracts for actual delivery of goods' occurring in the latter part of the definition do also take in contracts of purchase. Such an understanding is inconsistent with the scheme and spirit of the Clause."

- "The nature of transactions entered into by the assessee... do not fall within nor are they saved by Clause (a) of the proviso."

The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the losses sustained by the assessee arose from speculative transactions not saved by Clause (a), and therefore could only be set off against speculative profits in accordance with the Income Tax Act.