ANGLO-FRENCH TEXTILE CO., LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS.

19°2 February 18, 1950, but, in view of the absence of any Straw oar distinct provision in d'fi section · I 21 that the power of Ma ufacturing amen ment an mo 1 catwn conferred on the State ~o., Ltd. · Gtvernment may be so exercised as to have retrospec-v. tive operation the order of April 26, 1950, viewed Gutta .~fill merely as an order of ainendment or modification, Workers' Union. cannot" by virtue of section 21, h:i.ve that effect. If, -therefore, the amending order operates prospectively, Das J, i.e., only as from the ate oft order, it cannot valid-ate the award whic.h had been made after the expiry of the time specified in the original order and before the date of the amending order, during which period the adjudicator was functus officio and had no jurisdic-tion to act at all. \Ve do not think the respondents can derive any support from section 21 of the U. P. General Clauses Act.

0The result, therefore, is that this appeal must be allowed and the award must be declared to be null and void and we order accordingly. In the circum-stances of this case we make no order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.

Agent for the appellant : Ganpat Rai. Agent for the respondent: S. D. Sekhari. Agent for the intervener: 0. P. Lal.

Dec. 22.

ANGLO-FRENCH TEXTIT~E CO., LTD. v.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS.

[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, DAS, VIVIAN BOSE and BHAGWATI JJ.]

India>! Income·tax Act (XI of 19e2), ss. 24 ( 2), 84-Return shoiving loss-lVhether loss can be recorded and carried forward-Proceedings fo1· re-assessment-Whether whole a.ssess·ment can be re-opened .

. .\n assessee submitted return showing the income as l<nil" ~nd this return was accepted by the Income-tax Officer. In the

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 449

next year the Income-tax Officer sent notice to the assessee 1952 under s. 34 (1) (bl calling for fresh return. The assessee sub-mitted ,a return .showing the income as "nil" and loss of Anglo-J?i·ench Rs. 3,92,357 and claimed that the Joss should be recorded il,lld Textile Co., Ltd. carried forward under s. 24 (2) of the Income-tax Act. The loss v. was arrived at by striking balance in the profit and loss account Commissioner of of just one business: Income-tax,

1952 Anglo-J?i·ench Textile Co., Ltd. v. Commissioner Income-tax, Madras.

Held, that the assessee was not entitled to have the loss determined and carried forward for two reasons, first, because when there is no income under any head at all there is nothing against which the loss can be set off in that year under s. 24 (1) and unless that can be done sub-s. (2) of s. 24 does not come into play ; secondly, set-off uncler s. 24 (2) can only be claimed when the loss arises under one head and the profit against which it is sought to be set off under different head.

Qnaere : Whether when proceedings are taken under s. 34 for the assessment of income which has escaped assessment, the assessee is entitled to re-open the whole proceedings.

CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1952. Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 18th January, 1950, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (Satyanarayana Rao and Viswanatha Sastri JJ.) in Case Referred No. 28 of 1947.

0. T. G. Nambiar (S. N. Mukherjee, with him) for the appellant. ' ·

M. 0. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, and 0. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India ( G. N. Joshi and P.A. Mehta, with them) for the respondent.

1952. December 22. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

BosE J.-The following question was referred to the High Court of Madras by the Income-tax Appellate 'rribunal under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:

" Whether on the facts and in the circumstances -0f the case when an assessment has been made under section 23 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, de-termining the ass.essee company's income as' nil' and when proceedings under section 34 were sub-sequently started to assess the ·income which the

Income-tax Officer believed to have escaped assess-

ment the assessee company is entitled to claim that Textile Co., Anglo-French Ltd. t oss o pro . s an 1 fit &a1.ns · (' me u l' d' ~ng eprecia · t' 10n · v. alfowance) sustamed by 1t m the prev10us year should Commissioner of be determined in the course of such proceedings." Income-tax, We are concerned in this case with the assessment Madras. year 194 -1 4 2. Th assessee is t nglo-French Bose J. Textile Company, company which is incorporated in the United Kingdom. ·It owns spinning and weaving mills at Pondicherry in French India and manufactures yarn and cloth there. The raw materials necessary for the manufacture, or at any rate much of it, such as cotton, used to be purchased in what was then the British India, through its agents Best & Company Ltd. of Madras. ·The bulk of its manufactured goods was also sold in British India, the rest being sold elsewhere. But in the year material to this case it did no business in British India and accordingly it submitted no return to the Income-tax authorities.

On 25th April, 1941, the Income-tax Officer issued notice to the assessee and called for return. The assessee replied on 9th June, 1941, that it had" at all times material to the assessment year no business in British India " and consequently no profits arose or accrued or were received in British India and therefore the assessee "was not liable to comply with the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act." 'l'he assessee added.

"In the circumstances the company is not liable to make return but with view to preserve the right of the company to appeal against any order that· may be passed by you, if necessary, we submit here-with without prejudice nil return receipt of which kindly acknowledge."

Appended to the letter was piece of paper which has been called " nil " return. It is the usual printed form in which returns are normally made but the only entry in the whole form is the word "nil''. The following declaration was also added:

s.c.:R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

" I further declare that the company was not 1952 resident in Briti&h India during the previous year AngZo-l!'renoh t ·; • ,, Textile Co.,

Textile Co., Ltd

• On 25th March, 1942, the Income-te.x Officer made the following order which he called an Assessment [0011]10 r er:

1[•missiotner ]noome· ax,, [of ]Madras. Boss J.

"The company made nil return of income obviously for the reason that it is not carrying on any business in British India ... I accept the return of income filed by the company an~ declare it is not liable to tax for the year 1941-42."

year later, namely, on 9th March,· 1943, the Income-tax Officer sent the assessee notice under section 34 (1) (b) in the following terms:

" Whereas in consequence of the definite informa-tion which has come into my possession ·r have dis-covered that your income assessable to income-tax for the year ending 31st March, 1942, has

(a) escaped assessment.

I therefore propose to assess the said income

that has

(a) escaped assessment.

I hereby require you to deliver to me not later than ... return in the attached form of your total income and total world income assessable for the sa1 .d year ... "

·In reply to this the assessee again submitted the same "nil " return and filed statement showing loss of Rs. 3,92,357 on its total world income. This was on 31st May, 1944.

The Income-tax Officer passed orders on this on 2nd June, 1944. He stated that the assessee was non-resident company and that during the year no sales were effected in British India and concluded as follows:

"As the net result for the world business is only loss, there can be no question of profits attributable

to operations in British India under section 42 (1) Tbe 'nil' I i [and ][42 ]fi [(3) ]l . [in respect of ]h [cotton ][purchases. ]d return 1s t ere ore accepte .

ng l o- renc I i Te•tile co., Ltd. return v. Commi,,ioner of of this is Income-ta•, Madras. Bose J. The last portion of

v. •Hence there. is no assessment for 1941-42. As Commi,,ioner of of this is non-resident company, the loss need not be Income-ta•, carried forward under section 24 (2) as tbat section Madras. in terms does not apply to non-residents. ,,

The last portion of the order is tbe one which oc-casions the assessee's grievance. It claims that the Income-tax Officer having accepted its statement of loss was bound to record it and cany it forward.

Appeals.followed to the Appellate Assistant Com-missioner of Income-tax and the Income-tax Appel-late Tribunal and ultimately there was reference to tbe High Court. The assessee has failed through.-out and now appeals here .

. 'l'he assessee's contention is based on the following provision of section 34. _ The first 5ub-section states that when notice is issued under that section the Income-tax Officer may proceed to assess or re-assess such income, profits or gains or recompute the loss or depreciation allowance and that -

"the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be; apply accordingly as if the no~ice were notice issued under [sub-section ( \l) of section 22]."

This it is said attracts section 24 (2).

vVe need not decide whether this contention- is well founded, namely, wl;iether tbe assessee can claim to reopen the proceedings, because, even if he can, we are of opinion that he cannot get what he asks for. There is no provision in the Act which entitles the assessee to have loss recorded or computed, un-less something is to be done with the loss. Thus, under section 24 (1) loss can be set_ off against an income, profit or gain and under sub-section (2) the balance of loss can be carried forward to follow-ing year on the conditions set out there. Except for this there is nothing else that can be called in aid. But under sub-section (<!) the loss can be carried forward when

S.0.R. SUPREME OOUR'r REPOR'fS

"the loss cannot be wholly set off under sub-section ( 1) '',

Anglo-French

and in that event only the "portion not so set off" can Textile Co., Ltd. be carried forward. \Ve are therefore thrown back on v. sub-section (1). ) Commissioner of

v. Commissioner of l1wo?ne-taro, !Jfadras.

Sub section (1) provides that where • an assessee sustains loss of profits or gains in any year under any of the heads mentioned in section 6 he shall be entitled to haYe the amount of the loss

Bose J.

"set off against his income, profits or gains under any other head in that year."

Therefore, before any question of set-off can arise, there must be (1) loss under one or more of the heads mentioned in section 6, and (2) an "income, ·profit or gain under some other head. It follows that when there is no income under any head at all, there is nothing against which the loss can be set off in that year and unless that can be done sub-section (2) does not come into play.

Next, set-off under. section 24 (1) can only be claimed when the loss arises under one head and the profit against which it is sought to be set off arises under different head. ·when the two arise under the same head, of course the loss can be deducted but that is done under section 10 and not under section 24 (1). See the decision of the Privy Council in Rm. Ar. Ar. Rm. Arunachalam Ohettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras (1). In the present case, the loss is computed by striking balance in the profit and loss account of just the one business and con-sequently no question of different heads arises. On both these grounds, therefore, the assessee's conten-tion must fail because, unless the loss can be set off under sub-section (1) of section '24, it cannot be carried forward under sub-section ('2) and if it cannot be carried forward the question of its determination and computation becomes irrelevant.

'fhe High Court proceeds on the ground that when proceedings are taken under sectiGn 34 the assessef,)

(1) [1936] 4 I.T.R. 173 at 178 and 17q.

1952 is not entitled to reopen the whole proceedings as the Textile ang , z-F o-co.' rtnc Ltd. 1 I [further ]port10n o • [proceedings are limited to assessing ]f th mcome w • h' 1c as escape assessment. [that ]v. ' We need not express any opinion on this; The Commissioner of question we have to answer is confined to the facts Income-tax, and circumstances of this case and those circum-Madras. stances are (1)-that no return was filed at any stage Bose J. of the case disclosing any income, profits or gains at all, (2) that proceedings were later taken under sec-tion 34, and (3) in the course of these proceedings the assessee claimed that certain loss should be determined and recorded. Our answer is that that cannot be done for the reasons we have given and that c9nsequently the question referred was rightly answered in the negative by the High Court.

The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed.

Agent for the appellant:_ P. K. Mukherji.

Agent for the respondent : G. H. Rajadhyaksha.

Dec. 22.

ANGLO-FRENCH TEXTILE CO. LTD.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS.

(MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, DAS, VIVIAN BOSE and BHAGWATI JJ.]

Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), ss. 42(1),42(3)-Nvn-resident-Purchase of materials in India by established agency-Whether an." operation ''-Profits attributable to purchase, whether assessable in India-"!Jusiness connection," meaning of.

Though few isolated transactions of purchase of raw mate-. rials in India by ·manufacturer carrying on business outside India may not amount, to the carrying on of an " operation" in India within the meaning of s. 42 (3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, where raw materials are purchased systematically and habitually in India through an established agency having special skill and competency in selecting the goods, such an activity wiil be an "operation" within s, 42 (3), and the portion of the profits