HINDUSTAN INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question involved in this reference is covered by the decision of the Bombay High Court in Shree Shakti Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, Bombay City, (1948) 16 ITR 187 (Bom) by the decision of the Nagpur High Court in Jaluram Bhikulal Firm of Itwara vs. CIT, Madhya Pradesh, (1952) 22 ITR 490 (Nag), and by a decision of ourselves in Bikaner Trading Co., Calcutta vs. CIT, West Bengal (1953) 24 ITR 419 (Cal). Mr. Mitra, who appears for the assessees, however, wanted to argue the point again. We readily agreed to allow him to do so, because in the case where we had occasion to decide the point, the assessee was not represented. In the next references the same point is involved that Mr. A. K. Sen, who appears for the assessees in that reference, made a request to us that we might defer our judgment till we had heard him. Accordingly, we heard the two reference together and are now able to pronouncement our judgment after having had the benefit of elaborate and careful arguments.

(2.) THE facts of the present case are simple and may be given in the words of the Tribunal. THEy have stated them as follow :--

(3.) IT was broadly contended on behalf of the assessees that since the amount in question was undoubtedly a dividend amount and tax had, in fact, been deducted before it had been paid, which the Revenue would get in due course, it was plainly unjust that the amount should be included in the assessable income of the assessees, and yet they should not be given the benefit of s. 18(5). IT is impossible to say that there is not great force in that contention, but, at the same time, it must be pointed out that there is no equity in matters of taxation. If the Act, on its true construction, be found to have limited the benefit of s. 18(5) to registered shareholders, the Courts must declare such to be the law.