# CITY &: SUBURBAN DISTRICT, BOMBAY v. HUKAMCHAND MILLS LTD. INDORE

- **Citation:** [1968] 1 S.C.R. 47
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1967-07-21
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 2178 to A 2182 of 1966
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/city-suburban-district-bombay-v-hukamchand-mills-ltd-indore-4126
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

..
····1
•
47
A
COMMI~IONER OF INCOME-TAX BOMBAY
B
CITY &: SUBURBAN DISTRICT, BOMBAY
v.
HUKAMCHAND MILLS LTD. INDORE
July 21, 1967
[J.C. SHAH, S. M. SJKRI AND V. RAMASWAMI, JI.)
Income Tax-Company in erstwhile State of Indore making sales
in India-Railway Receipts issued to 'self' and endorsed to customers
in British India-Handed over to bank to be given to custoiner on
payment of sal.e price-Whether property .passed in British IndiaC Whether Indian Income tax leviable.
The respondent was a limited company incorporated in the
State of Indore where it had a textile mill. During the years from
1941 to 1946, it effected sales in British India through canvassing by
its own representatives;. through brokers or through the purchasers'
brokers or representatives visiting Indore. The sales in British India
D in all categories were mad.,-F.O.R. Indore: the Railway Receipts
were made out in the name of 'self' and were endorsed in favour of
the customer concerned and handed over to the Bank for delivery
to the customer against payment of the sale price which was received at Indore through the Bank's local branch.
In the course of its assessment to Indian Income-tax for some
of the yeal'S during the period 1942-43 to 1947-48, the Income-tax
E Of!lcer, apart from taxing the income actually received in India,
also held that the profits apportionable to all the other sales made
in British India accrued or arose in the taxable tercitories and were
therefore liable to Indian Income-tax. He accordingly taxed the same
on accrual basis. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal
held that taking into account the fact• of the case. it would be fair.
on the analogy of Rule 33 of the Indian Income-tax Rules 1922 to
attribute 33! per cent of the profits to the activities in British India
p and to assess them to Indian Income Tax. The Tribunal confirmed
this order but the High Court. on a reference under s. 66 of the
Indian Income-tax Act. held in favour of the respondent.
In the appeal to Supreme Court it was contended on behalf of
the appe11ant that on the procedure adooted for the sales, the property in the goods passed in British India in all the categ"°ies of
sales and that the fact that the goods were sold F.O.R. at Indore did
G not make any clifference to that position. The High Court had therefore wrongly taken the view that the sales were not taxable in India.
HELD;. Allowing the appeal: the income accrued within British
India and a proportionate part of It was assessable to Indian Incometax. [52G-H]
Pushanlal Mansingka IP) Ltd. v. The Commissioner of .Income
H Tax, Delhi, Civil Appeal Nos. 557-558 of 1966, decided on May 5,
1967; followed.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi v. P.M. Rathod & Co. ".rl I.T.R.
145, 150: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhopal Textiles Ltd., 41 I.T.R.
72, referred to.
48
SUP!lEm: COURT ltEPORTS
[1968] l 8.0.B.

## Text

..
····1
•
47
A
COMMI~IONER OF INCOME-TAX BOMBAY
B
CITY &: SUBURBAN DISTRICT, BOMBAY
v.
HUKAMCHAND MILLS LTD. INDORE
July 21, 1967
[J.C. SHAH, S. M. SJKRI AND V. RAMASWAMI, JI.)
Income Tax-Company in erstwhile State of Indore making sales
in India-Railway Receipts issued to 'self' and endorsed to customers
in British India-Handed over to bank to be given to custoiner on
payment of sal.e price-Whether property .passed in British IndiaC Whether Indian Income tax leviable.
The respondent was a limited company incorporated in the
State of Indore where it had a textile mill. During the years from
1941 to 1946, it effected sales in British India through canvassing by
its own representatives;. through brokers or through the purchasers'
brokers or representatives visiting Indore. The sales in British India
D in all categories were mad.,-F.O.R. Indore: the Railway Receipts
were made out in the name of 'self' and were endorsed in favour of
the customer concerned and handed over to the Bank for delivery
to the customer against payment of the sale price which was received at Indore through the Bank's local branch.
In the course of its assessment to Indian Income-tax for some
of the yeal'S during the period 1942-43 to 1947-48, the Income-tax
E Of!lcer, apart from taxing the income actually received in India,
also held that the profits apportionable to all the other sales made
in British India accrued or arose in the taxable tercitories and were
therefore liable to Indian Income-tax. He accordingly taxed the same
on accrual basis. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal
held that taking into account the fact• of the case. it would be fair.
on the analogy of Rule 33 of the Indian Income-tax Rules 1922 to
attribute 33! per cent of the profits to the activities in British India
p and to assess them to Indian Income Tax. The Tribunal confirmed
this order but the High Court. on a reference under s. 66 of the
Indian Income-tax Act. held in favour of the respondent.
In the appeal to Supreme Court it was contended on behalf of
the appe11ant that on the procedure adooted for the sales, the property in the goods passed in British India in all the categ"°ies of
sales and that the fact that the goods were sold F.O.R. at Indore did
G not make any clifference to that position. The High Court had therefore wrongly taken the view that the sales were not taxable in India.
HELD;. Allowing the appeal: the income accrued within British
India and a proportionate part of It was assessable to Indian Incometax. [52G-H]
Pushanlal Mansingka IP) Ltd. v. The Commissioner of .Income
H Tax, Delhi, Civil Appeal Nos. 557-558 of 1966, decided on May 5,
1967; followed.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi v. P.M. Rathod & Co. ".rl I.T.R.
145, 150: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhopal Textiles Ltd., 41 I.T.R.
72, referred to.
48
SUP!lEm: COURT ltEPORTS
[1968] l 8.0.B.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 2178 to A
2182 of 1966.
Appeals by special leave from the judb•ment and· order dated
August 28, 1961 of the Bombay High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 5 of 1961.
S. T. Desai, R. Ganapathy Iyer, R. N. Sachtlrey and S. P. B
Nayar, for the appellant (in all the appeals).
T. V. VJswanatha Iyer, 0. C. Mathur, and B. Parthasarathy,
for the respondent (in all the appeals).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Slkrl, J.-These appeals by special leave are directed against
the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at 'Bombay answering the following question (Question No. 3) against the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City and Suburban District, appellant before us:
c
"3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
D
applicant's case the Tribunal was right in holding that
a proportionate part of the profits determined on sales
grouped under Items 3, 4. 5 and 9 in the assessment
order by the application of Rule 33 was assessable to Jn.
come-tax?"
The High Court, in view of its answer to this question did not E
answer the following question (Question No 2):
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
applicant's case, the Tribunal was right in holding that
in respect of sales of Rs. 14,80,059 the profit was correctly determined by the application of Rule 53 and one-third
of the profits so determined could be said to accrue or
F
arise in British India?"
We are not concerned with the remaining question (Question No. I)
which related to sales to the Government of India, as that question was answered in favour of the appellant.
Relevant facts are as follows: The respondent, Hukamchand G
Mills Ltd.. Indore. hereinafter referred to as the assessee, is a
limited company incorporated in the State of Indore and had a
textile mill at Indore. It carried on the business of manufacture
and sale of textiles in the calendar years 1941, 1942, 1944, 1945
and· 1946. For the relevant assessment years, namely, 194243,
194344. 1945-46, 194647 and 1947-48, the Income-tax Officer
found that the assessee effected certain sales to merchants and B
others in British India. For the assessment year 194243, the
Income-tax Officer classified the total sales of Rs. 92,45,151 into
four categories. Out· of the total sales, sales aggregating to
<
!!I
C.I.1'. V, HUKAMCllAND MILLS (Si!Ti, J.)
A Rs. 14,80,059 formed the subject-matter of the two questions re·
produced above. The statement of the case details the categories
in the following chart:
B
0
D
E
(•)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Sft!es in })UrllU!\lll.'C
of
lnulint•;;s
Cl\.UY811St'd
by
oon1pnny'11
rl'prerscutnTota}
!';11lc1J
~lll(.'it
t'Jl'ootC'tl '
&ltd
rrceh·ed
in Brith!h
l1Hlift.
Bai.nee
of
column8
II Md
III
Sale•
purBU·
ant to
cont.
raot1
lx'o.ring
~tompa
of
Indore
State
Hti.luneo
tiYC!f
in British India lt•,02,642 3,30,805 0,66,787
20,75g
ft,46,028 (3)
Sales to Brit.h1h Ind inn
u1crchu11te through b1'o·
kers nn<l agent!! !11 British
India
2,Yl,891
2,91,891
!,91,891 (4)
Sales to British Indian
merchants and broker•
dnring thcirvi1'1it at Indore 3,83,214
3,85,214
2,86,224 (il)
Salee to Britiab Indian
1ncrchiu1te at the tlm::i of
th<ifr own or their broker1'
,·isit at bu.lortJ
3,13,306
3,13,300
67,390
:
1m;,91e (9)
-----------
19,93,063 3,36,86l5 16,67,198 1,77,139 1,,80,060
------ ---------
(The figures &t tho cxtrt·mo rjght 11how tho item numbers used by the Inoomu-tas
Officer in para 2 of tho aeaesem.ent ordt'r).
The modus opercmdi for effecting the sales enumerated in the
P chart referred to above is described as follows in the statement of
G
H
the case:
"(a) Sales of Rs. 6,66,787 :-The assessce had a paid
representative at Bombay who canvassed on behalf of the
Company to British Indian Merchants. The orders were
sent by such merchants to Indore. On acceptance of orders
by the Company at Indore the Company prepared the
contracts, signed them and forwarded the same for being signed by the customer. One contract was signed by
the customer and returned to the assessee. Thus the
Company signed at Indore and the customer signed in
British India. The contracts were signed on company's
forms. On some contracts there were stamps of Holkar
State. On the remainder there were 'British India' stamps.
Sales on which Holkar Stamps were affixed aggregated
to Rs. 20,759 which were deleted by the Appellate
L/P(N)ISCI-5
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1968] 1 s.r.a.
Assistant
Commissioner
from
the
said
sales
of
Rs. 6,66,787. Sales of Rs. 3,35,855 under this category
received in British India by the representative of the
asscssec at Bombay were taxed on receipt basis and the
same was not contested, as stated above. The goods
under the contracts referred to hereinabove were delivered F.O.R. Indore. The relevant railway receipt made
in the name of 'self' was endorsed in favour of the customer and was handed over to Imperial Bank· of India.
Indore, for being delivered to the merchant. Sale proceeds
were received at Indore through the Imperial Bank of
India, Indore.
lb) Sales of Rs. 2,91,891 : - -The brokers in British India
who were described as free lance brokers transmitted the
offers to the company. These offers were made on the
brokers' own forms and were communicated to the merchants through the brokers. Such orders were placed by
the brokers in the normal course of business of these brokers who were not engaged by the Mill as such. The
goods were delivered F.O.R. Indore. The relevant railway receipt made in the name of 'Self' was endorsed by
the assessee in favour of the merchants and handed over
to the Imperial Bank of India.
(c) Sales of Rs. 3,85,214: -These sales were made to
British Indian merchants and customers, who came to In·
dore to negotiate and place orders. The orders were ae>
cepted at Indore. On some contracts made for sales under
this item, stamps of Holkar State were affixed. Sales pursuant to contracts on which stamps at Holkar State were
affixed aggregated to Rs. 98,990 which was deleted by
the Appellate Assistant Commissioner from the aforesaid
sales of Rs. ~.85,214. The goods were delivered· F.O.R.
Indore. The railway receipt was made out in the name of
'Self and was endorsed by the asses5ee in favour of the
customer and handed over to the Imperial Bank of India
for being delivered to the party concerned. The sale proceeds were received at Indore as in other cases.
(d) Sales of Rs. 3,13.306 :-Sales under this category
were made to British Indian merchants on their or their
broker's personal visit to Indore. Contracts for such
sales were made in the same manner as stated hereinbefore. Such sales, in respect of which relevant contracts
bore the Holkar State stamps aggregated to Rs. 57,390
which were deleted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner from the aforesaid sales of Rs. 3,13,306. The goods
were delivered F.O.R. Indore. The railway receipt was
made in the name of 'self' and was endorsed in favour
A
B
c
D
E
r
G
B
C.I.T. II. llUKAMCl!AND lllLLB (Sim, J.)
A
of the customer and handed over to the Imperial Bank
of India for being delivered to the merchants. The sale
proceeds were recovered from the Imperial Bank of India,
Indore, at Indore as in other cases."
Ill
The Income-tax Officer held that profits apportioliable on
B sales of Rs .. 16,57,198 accrued or arose in British India and as
such taxed the same on accrual basis. Rs. 3,35,855 having been
received in British India were taxed on acerual-t"um-receipt basis.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal held· that taking
into account all facts of the case it would be fair to take 331 %
of the profits realised on sales amounting to Rs. 16,57,198 as
0 attributable to activities in British India. Out of this amount he
deducted sales totalling. ;Rs. 1,77,139 as the contracts. in respect
of these were signed at Indore and . accepted at Indore:. On the
balance of sales of Rs. 14,80,059 the Appellate Assistant Com·
missioner held that, on the analogy of Rule 33 of the Indian Income-tu Rules, 33*% profits out·of the total profits apportionable
to such sales should bl) attributable to the activities in British
D India and, as such tued, in the hands of the assessee. The .Tribunal confirmed· the order of the Appellllte Assistant Commissioner.
In compliance with the order of the Bonibay High Court, the
Appellate Tribunal drew up a statement .of the case under ;;. 55!4)
cl the Inman Income-tax Act, and referred three questions men·
tioned above. The High Court. as stated above. answered Question
:1 No~·3 in favour of the.~. and the a~llaQt having obtained
special leave. the appeal is now'before tis.
·
Mr. S. T. Desai the learned counsel for. the apperuuri, oon<
tends ·that 1he High Court was wrong in holding that no part of
the profits of the sales could be said to have accrued or arisen
I' in British India; He says thaf on the facts and circumstances of
the case, the property in the goods passed in British India in all
the fOur categOries. He says that the method of delivery in the
four categories was siniilar. namely, that the railW&y receipts were
made in• the ·name •of· 'self'• and endorsed in favi>ur· of the customm and were handed over to the Imperial Bank of India, Indore,
for being : delivered to the merchant' and sale proceeds weie re-
& ceived at Indore through the Imperial Bank of India, In:!=. He
further says that the fact that the goods were to be delivered F.0.R.
at Ind~re d~ not m_akc the _Property in the ·p>ds. pass. at ~orC.
There IS c<>nSiderable force m the learned counsel's submissions.
In PushaitJa1 M"1!8in9hka (P) L!d-. v. The Commissioner of lneoMe
TaJC. Delhi,('), this Court, on sunjlar facts, held tlJat the property
a in _the goods passed in Part A and Part C States. where the delivery
was made. This Court further held that the income accrued on1t
(') OiTIJ J.ppeoll Noo; "1Ja'i.IJll8 of !OM; judgemODt delifered an May~ 3, Iotr.
/
IS2
SUPRBIOl COUllT UPOllTI
fl968] 1 s.c.11.
when the purchaser paid the price throui:h the bank. The method A
of delivery in that case was as follows:
"The appellant consigned the goods· to 'self' and the railway receipts alongwith the bills of exchange were presented by the appellant to the Rajasthan Bank, Bhilwara, for
collection after endorsing the railway receipts in favour
of the Bank. It has also been found that the Rajasthan
Bank in its turn endorsed the railway receipts in favour
of its branches in Part 'A' and Part 'C' States and that
the goods were delivered to the buyers only when they
paid the price to the Bank and obtained the railway receipts."
We may mention that in Co111missio11er of llK·omc-tax, Delhi
v. P. M. Rathod & Co.(') Kapur, J., speaking for the Court, on
similar facts, observed:
"The railway receipts in favour of self could not be deB
a
livered to tbe buyer till the money was paid and although
D
the goods had been handed over to a common carrier tbe
appropriation to the contract was only conditional and
the performance was completed only when the monies
were paid and the railway receipts delivered."
This case was followed in Commissioner of Income-tax v. E
Bhopal Textiles Ltd.('). Jt is true that the Court in these cases was
concerned with the question of the receipt of income, but there is
no difference in principle as in both cases the question of passing
the property in the goods or performance of the contract had to
be considered.
The learned counsel for the assesscc contends that no such F
point was raised before the Appellate Tribunal and we should not
allow the appellant to raise this point at this stage. It seems to us
that before the High ·Court stress was laid on the "formation of the
contract and its complete performance" and not on the aspect of
the passing of property in the goods. These questions are perhaps
relevant to the answei-ing of Question No. 2 but we are unable to G
regard this aspect as a new question. Following our judgment in
Pushanlal Man.ii11ghka (P) Ltd. v. The Commissio11er of lllcometax, Delhi(') we hold that income accrued within British India and
that a proportionate part of the income was assessable to incometax. In view of this thQ answer to the question (Question No. 3)
must be in the affirmative.
B
<'> 37 r.r.R. 14.;, 150.
(1) 41 I.T.R. 72.
(') Civil .\pP"ob Nos. ~;H.;~ of 19&1; judgment ,leliv.r•~ on l!ay S, 1967.
C,l.T, <. HUKAMOHAND lllLLS. (Sihi, J.)
63
A
Regarding Question No. 2, the learned counsel for the appellant invited us to answer the question. The learned counsel for
the assessee raised a number of points on which the High Court
has not expressed its views. Under the circumstances we think it
would be proper if we remand the case to the High Court fpr
answering Question No. 2 according to law.. In the result the
appeals are allowed and question No. 3 answered in the affirmaB tive, and the case remitted to the High Court to answer question
No. 2 in accordance with law.
The High Court did not allow any costs. Under the circumstances there will be no order as to costs in this Court.
R.K.P.S.
Appeals allowed.