Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs M/S Stainless Investment Ltd. on 19 November, 2015
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 19.11.2015
+ ITA 305/2002
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-I ..... Appellant
versus
M/S STAINLESS INVESTMENT LTD. ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mr Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing Counsel
with Mr Raghvendra Singh and Mr Shikhar
Garg.
For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Ms.
Kavita Jha.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
JUDGMENT
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
1. The Revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the 'Act') impugning an order dated 14th March,
2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter 'ITAT') in
ITA No. 5306/Del/95. The said appeal (being ITA No. 5306/Del/95) was
filed by the Revenue against an order dated 15th March, 1995 passed by the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter 'CIT(A)'] in Appeal
No.284/93-94 whereby the CIT(A) allowed the Assessee's appeal directed
against the assessment order dated 28th July, 1993 passed by the Assessing
Officer in respect of Assessment Year (AY) 1990-91.
2. The Appeal was admitted on 12th October, 2004 and the following
questions of law were framed:-
"1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in
holding that the sale consideration received by the assessee
by transfer of shares and sale of rights entitlement of Partly
Convertible Debentures (PCDs) is income from capital gains
and not income from business?
2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in
holding that the assessee had incurred loss on sale of its
entitlement to acquire partly convertible debentures and the
assessee is entitled to set off the alleged loss from the capital
gains/income earned by the assessee?"
3. However in the facts of the present case, the first question does not
arise. Further the reference to partly convertible debentures in the second
question may be read as fully convertible debentures.
4. Briefly stated the relevant facts necessary to address the aforesaid
question are as under:-
4.1 The Assessee company is an investment company belonging to the
Jindal Group of companies. Jindal Group is mainly engaged in the
manufacturing and production of ferrous metals and alloys. Jindal Group
includes investment companies - such as the Assessee - which, inter alia,
hold and transact in shares of the operational companies of the Group.
4.2 The Assessee filed its return of income on 28 th December, 1990
declaring an income of Rs.75,510/-. In the computation of income, the
Assessee had claimed a loss of Rs.40,22,350/-. The return was picked up
for scrutiny and the AO passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) of
the Act on 10th June, 1992. The said assessment was set aside by CIT(A) by
an order dated 2nd February, 1993. Thereafter, a notice under Section
143(2) of the Act was issued to the Assessee and a fresh assessment order
dated 28th July, 1993 was passed by the AO.
4.3 As on 1st April, 1989, the Assessee held 1,94,000 equity shares of
Jindal Strips Limited (hereafter 'JSL'). JSL floated rights issue of fully
convertible debentures (FCDs) of Rs.140/- each. In terms of the said issue,
every shareholder would be entitled to subscribe to FCDs in the ratio of 2:1,
that is, 1 FCD for every 2 equity shares held by the shareholders.
Accordingly, the Assessee was offered 97,000 FCDs. Out of the aforesaid
entitlement, the Assessee renounced rights to subscribe to 35,000 FCDs in
favour of M/s Saw Pipes Ltd. (another company of the Jindal Group) at
Rs.12/- per FCD, that is, at an aggregate consideration of Rs.4,20,000/-.
4.4 The Assessee claimed that the cum-right price of an equity share of
JSL was Rs.270/- as on 27th October, 1989 and the said share was quoted
ex-rights at Rs.208/-. The Assessee claimed that the cost of rights to
subscribe to 35,000 FCDs was Rs.43,40,000/- (i.e. Rs.62 per share x 70,000
shares). Accordingly, the Assessee claimed that it had incurred a loss of
Rs.39,20,000/- (Rs.43,40,000/- - Rs.4,20,000/-).
4.5 The AO noticed that the shares of JSL were held as closing stock
and, accordingly, disallowed the notional cost of acquisition claimed by the
Assessee. The Assessee held that any diminution in the value of stock of
JSL - the basis on which the cost of acquisition of rights was claimed -
would be reflected in the valuation of the closing stock of JSL. He also
observed that the closing stock was valued at price of Rs.10.38/- per share
against the market value of Rs.118/- per share and, thus, any loss claimed
by the Assessee was only notional.
4.6 The Assessee appealed to the CIT(A) against the said assessment
order (being Appeal No. 294/93-94). The CIT(A) allowed the aforesaid
appeal and held that the loss claimed by the Assessee was allowable in
terms of the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. K.A. Patch:
(1971) 81 ITR 413 (Bom).
5. The Revenue preferred an appeal before the ITAT, which was
rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue has filed the present appeal.
6. The present appeal was heard alongwith Commissioner of Income
Tax Delhi-I v. M/s Abhinandan Investment Ltd.: ITA No.130/2001 and
the questions of law framed in present appeal and in ITA 130/2001 are also
common. Further, the learned counsel for the parties contended that the
material facts and issues in the present appeal were similar to the issues
involved in ITA 130/2001 and a decision in ITA 130/2001 would also be
determinative of the question in the present appeal.
7. Thus, in view of our decision in Commissioner of Income Tax
Delhi-I v. M/s Abhinandan Investment Ltd.: ITA 130/2001 delivered
today, the question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue and against
the Assessee.
8. The appeal is allowed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
S. MURALIDHAR, J
NOVEMBER 19, 2015
RK
