Supreme Court
Summary and Review of Case Laws Decided by Supreme Court of India
Saturday, 22 April 2017 11:15

Slump Sale - Sale of Entire Running Business with Assets & Liabilities in One Go is Slump Sale and Not Short Term Capital Gains - Supreme Court Featured

Written by
Rate this item
(1 Vote)
Slump Sale u/s 50B - Supreme Court Slump Sale u/s 50B - Supreme Court Taxpundit.org

Whether selling of entire running business in one go alongwith assets and liabilities can be taxed as short term capital gains u/s 50(2)? - Held No

 

Section 50 (2) applies to a case where any block of assets are transferred by the assessee but where the entire running business with assets and liabilities is sold by the assessee in one go, such sale, in our view, cannot be considered as “short-term capital assets”. In other words, the provisions of Section 50 (2) of the Act would apply to a case where the assessee transfers one or more block of assets, which he was using in running of his business. 

As rightly noticed by the CIT (appeal) that the entire running business with all assets and liabilities having been sold in one go by the respondent-assessee, it was a slump sale of a “long-term capital asset”. It was, therefore, required to be taxed accordingly

Equinox Solution Pvt. Ltd.1. This appeal was filed by the Revenue (Income Tax Department) against the order dated 29.07.2003 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in I.T.A. No. 59 of 2003 whereby the High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal on the ground that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961

2. The respondent-assessee was engaged in the business of manufacturing sheet metal components out of CRPA & OP sheds at Ahmadabad

3. The respondent decided to sell their entire running business in one go

4. With this aim in view, the respondent sold their entire running business in one go with all its assets and liabilities on 31.12.1990 to a Company called "Amtrex Appliances Ltd" for Rs.58,53,682/-

5. In the return, the respondent claimed deduction under Section 48 (2) of the Act as it stood then by treating the sale to be in the nature of "slump sale" of the going concern being in the nature of long term capital gain in the hands of the assessee

6. The Assessing Officer by his order dated 04.03.1994 did not accept the contention of the assessee in claiming deduction

7. According to the Assessing Officer, the case of the assessee was covered under Section 50 (2) of the Act because it was in the nature of short term capital gain as specified in Section 50 (2) of the Act and hence did not fall under Section 48 (2) of the Act as claimed by the assessee

8. The Assessing Officer accordingly reworked the claim of the deduction treating the same to be falling under Section 50 (2) of the Act and framed the assessment order

9. The assessee, felt aggrieved, filed appeal before the CIT (appeals)

10. By order dated 06.10.1995, the Commissioner of Appeals allowed the assessee’s appeal in so far as it related to the issue of deduction

11. He held that when it is an undisputed fact that the assessee has sold their entire running business in one go with its assets and liabilities at a slump price and, therefore, the provisions of Section 50 (2) of the Act could not be applied to such sale

12. He held that it was not a case of sale of any individual or one block asset which may attract the provisions of Section 50 (2) of the Act

13. He then examined the case of the assessee in the context of definition of "long term capital gain" and "short term capital asset" and held that since the undertaking itself is a capital asset owned by the assessee nearly for six years and being in the nature of long term capital asset and the same having been sold in one go as a running concerned, it cannot be termed a “short terms capital gain” so as to attract the provisions of Section 50 (2) of the Act as was held by the Assessing Officer

14. The CIT (appeals) accordingly allowed the assessee to claim the deduction as was claimed by them before the Assessing Officer

15. The Revenue, felt aggrieved of the order of the CIT (appeal), filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

16. By order dated 27.06.2002, the Tribunal concurred with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner of Appeal and accordingly dismissed the Revenue's appeal

17. The Revenue, felt aggrieved of the order of the Tribunal, carried the matter to the High Court in further appeal under Section 260-A of the Act

18. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the appeal holding that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 260-A of the Act

19. It is against this order the Revenue felt aggrieved and carried the matter to Supreme Court in appeal by way of special leave

20. Honb. Supreme Court decided in favour of the Assessee 

Also Read : Section 50B - Slump Sale - Negative figure of the net worth should not be ignored for working out the capital gains in case of a slump sale and AO was right in adding the amount of liabilities being reflected in negative net worth - Mumbai Tribunal

Adjudication

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, no fault can be found in the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the CIT (appeal) in his order which, in our view, was rightly upheld by the Tribunal and then by the High Court calling no interference by this Court in this appeal.

In our considered opinion, the case of the respondent (assessee) does not fall within the four corners of Section 50 (2) of the Act. Section 50 (2) applies to a case where any block of assets are transferred by the assessee but where the entire running business with assets and liabilities is sold by the assessee in one go, such sale, in our view, cannot be considered as “short-term capital assets”. In other words, the provisions of Section 50 (2) of the Act would apply to a case where the assessee transfers one or more block of assets, which he was using in running of his business. Such is not the case here because in this case, the assessee sold the entire business as a running concern.

As rightly noticed by the CIT (appeal) that the entire running business with all assets and liabilities having been sold in one go by the respondent-assessee, it was a slump sale of a “long-term capital asset”. It was, therefore, required to be taxed accordingly.

Supreme Court on Section 50B - CIT vs. Equinox Solution Pvt. Ltd.

Our view finds support with the law laid down by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat vs. Artex Manufacturing Co. [1997(6) SCC 437 CIT]. In Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer & Anr., 264 ITR 193 (Bombay) also, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court examined this question in detail on somewhat similar facts and has taken the same view. The Learned Judge S.H Kapadia - (as His Lordship then was as Judge of the Bombay High Court and later became CJI) speaking for the Bench aptly explained the legal position to which we concur as it correctly summarized the legal position applicable to such facts.

Learned Counsel for the appellant (Revenue) was not able to cite any decision taking a contrary view nor was he able to point out any error in the decisions cited at the Bar by the assesse’s counsel referred supra.

In the light of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the appeal which fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Cases Referred to

1. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat vs. Artex Manufacturing Co. [1997(6) SCC 437 CIT]

2. Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer & Anr., 264 ITR 193 (Bombay)

YOU CAN ALSO SEARCH FOR YOUR DESIRED TOPICS:

If You Appreciate What We Do Here On TaxPundit, You Should Consider:

We are thankful for your never ending support.

Recommended Articles

 

Additional Info

Read 4679 times Last modified on Sunday, 23 April 2017 08:30
Taxpundit

Founder & CEO with over 20 years of total professional experience spread across Internal Audit, IT Audit, Enterprise Risk Management, Financial statement audit & Business Finance Management.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/taxpundit | This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Media

Quick search of Case Laws Taxpundit.org

Leave a comment

Thank you for reading! We welcome and appreciate your comments, but at the same time, make sure you are adding something valuable to this article. If you have any serious queries, suggestions or anything related to this article, feel free to share them, we really appreciate that.

If you want to give us any feedback or report any errors, you can email your concerns on taxpundit@taxpundit.org and we'll revert back soon.

Have you done Analysis of any Case? Tell Us About It.

ABOUT TAXPUNDIT

Taxpundit.org provides Income Tax Case Laws, Circulars, Notification, Orders, Press Releases etc. to Members without any subscription.

Subscription is for extra tools, features and functionalities.

Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest developments and special offers!

Create your own website as per ICAI guidelines. Plan starts at Rs. 15000/- with Free Premium Membership. Read more
Toggle Bar