Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. U.P. State Warehousing Corporation - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/461884
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided OnMar-28-1991
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference No. 105 of 1979
JudgeB.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. and ;R.A. Sharma, J.
Reported in(1991)100CTR(All)15; [1992]195ITR273(All); [1991]58TAXMAN55(All)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 10(29)
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax
RespondentU.P. State Warehousing Corporation
Excerpt:
- b.p. jeevan reddy c.j.1. under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, the income-tax appellate tribunal has stated the following questions--one relating to the assessment year 1973-74 and the other relating to the assessment year 1974-75. they read as follows :2. assessment year 1973-74 :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was legally correct in holding that the assessee's income from miscellaneous receipts was exempt from tax within the meaning of section 10(29) of the income-tax act, 1961 ; notwithstanding the provisions of section 39 of the warehousing corporations act, 1962 ?'3. assessment year 1974-75 :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was legally correct in holding that the assessee's income from miscellaneous receipts and commission on procurement of wheat for food corporation of india was exempt from tax within the meaning of section 10(29) of the income-tax act, 1961, notwithstanding the provisions of section 39 of the warehousing corporation act, 1962 ?'4. the respondent-assessee is a statutory corporation established under the warehousing corporations act, 1962. during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1973-74, it derived income from what it called 'miscellaneous receipts'. similarly, during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1974-75, it derived certain income from miscellaneousreceipts and by way of commission on procurement of wheat for and on behalf of the food corporation of india. it claimed that the income so received is exempt under clause (29) of section 10 of the act. section 10(29) reads as under :'10. in computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included- (29) in the case of an authority constituted under any law for the time being in force for the marketing of commodities, any income derived from the letting of godowns or warehouses for storage, processing or facilitating the marketing of commodities.' 5. a reading of the clause shows that it provides for exemption of income derived from 'letting of godowns or warehouses for storage, processing or facilitating the marketing of commodities', if such income is derived by 'an authority constituted under any law for the 'time being in force, for the marketing of commodities.' the first question, therefore, is whether the respondent-assessee is an authority constituted under any law for the marketing of commodities. that it does satisfy this requirement is established by a decision of this court in u.p. state warehousing corporation v. ito : [1974]94itr129(all) , which is affirmed by the supreme court in its decision in union of india v. u. p. state warehousing corporation [1991] 187 itr 54.6. the second question is whether the income derived from the aforesaid sources in the two years is of the nature contemplated by the clause. from a perusal of the tribunal's judgment, we find that although these receipts are termed as miscellaneous receipts and commission on procurement of wheat for and on behalf of the food corporation of india, they are indeed income derived from letting of warehousing for storage, processing or facilitating the marketing of commodities. in its order relating to the assessment year 1973-74, this aspect (miscellaneous receipts) has been dealt with in para 3 of its order. it has merely followed its order relating to earlier assessment years. we have seen the earlier order of the tribunal. there, it has been held by the tribunal that though called miscellaneous receipts, they are more or less in the nature of rent received from warehousing. once this is so, it is evident that though called miscellaneous receipts, they are in truth income derived from letting warehousing for storage, processing and facilitating the marketing of commodities. so far as the commission received by the assessee is concerned, it is dealt with in para 4 of the tribunal's order. the tribunalheld that commission was received both for procuring and storing wheat and other food articles on behalf of the food corporation of india. it appears from the order of the tribunal that it is one single indivisible activity. the dominant activity is storage. if so, this income also falls within and satisfies the second limb of clause (29). here too, the name given, viz., 'commission on procurement of wheat'--is really a misnomer. for the above reasons, both the questions are answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. no costs.
Judgment:

B.P. Jeevan Reddy C.J.

1. Under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the following questions--one relating to the assessment year 1973-74 and the other relating to the assessment year 1974-75. They read as follows :

2. Assessment year 1973-74 :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the assessee's income from miscellaneous receipts was exempt from tax within the meaning of Section 10(29) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ; notwithstanding the provisions of Section 39 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 ?'

3. Assessment year 1974-75 :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the assessee's income from miscellaneous receipts and commission on procurement of wheat for Food Corporation of India was exempt from tax within the meaning of Section 10(29) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 39 of the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962 ?'

4. The respondent-assessee is a statutory corporation established under the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1973-74, it derived income from what it called 'Miscellaneous receipts'. Similarly, during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1974-75, it derived certain income from miscellaneousreceipts and by way of commission on procurement of wheat for and on behalf of the Food Corporation of India. It claimed that the income so received is exempt under Clause (29) of Section 10 of the Act. Section 10(29) reads as under :

'10. In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included-

(29) in the case of an authority constituted under any law for the time being in force for the marketing of commodities, any income derived from the letting of godowns or warehouses for storage, processing or facilitating the marketing of commodities.'

5. A reading of the clause shows that it provides for exemption of income derived from 'letting of godowns or warehouses for storage, processing or facilitating the marketing of commodities', if such income is derived by 'an authority constituted under any law for the 'time being in force, for the marketing of commodities.' The first question, therefore, is whether the respondent-assessee is an authority constituted under any law for the marketing of commodities. That it does satisfy this requirement is established by a decision of this court in U.P. State Warehousing Corporation v. ITO : [1974]94ITR129(All) , which is affirmed by the Supreme Court in its decision in Union of India v. U. P. State Warehousing Corporation [1991] 187 ITR 54.

6. The second question is whether the income derived from the aforesaid sources in the two years is of the nature contemplated by the clause. From a perusal of the Tribunal's judgment, we find that although these receipts are termed as miscellaneous receipts and commission on procurement of wheat for and on behalf of the Food Corporation of India, they are indeed income derived from letting of warehousing for storage, processing or facilitating the marketing of commodities. In its order relating to the assessment year 1973-74, this aspect (miscellaneous receipts) has been dealt with in para 3 of its order. It has merely followed its order relating to earlier assessment years. We have seen the earlier order of the Tribunal. There, it has been held by the Tribunal that though called miscellaneous receipts, they are more or less in the nature of rent received from warehousing. Once this is so, it is evident that though called miscellaneous receipts, they are in truth income derived from letting warehousing for storage, processing and facilitating the marketing of commodities. So far as the commission received by the assessee is concerned, it is dealt with in para 4 of the Tribunal's order. The Tribunalheld that commission was received both for procuring and storing wheat and other food articles on behalf of the Food Corporation of India. It appears from the order of the Tribunal that it is one single indivisible activity. The dominant activity is storage. If so, this income also falls within and satisfies the second limb of Clause (29). Here too, the name given, viz., 'Commission on procurement of wheat'--is really a misnomer. For the above reasons, both the questions are answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.