Input:
Appeal No. 684 of 1968.
Y. section Dharmadhikari, Advocate General for the State of Madhya Pradesh and 1.
N. Shroff, for the appellants.
M. C. Setalvad, Rameshwar Nath and section K. Dholakia, for respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court quashing the proceedings initiated on the complaint filed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Saugor in the Court of the Magistrate of the First Class Saugor for imposition of a penalty on the respondents.
The matter arises thus.
Chhotahhai Jethabhai Patel, a partnership firm of which the second respondent, Jhaverbhai Bhulabhai Patel is a partner, carried on business on a fairly large scale as manufacturers of bidis at various places in the State of Madhya Pradesh including Saugor.
Being unable to secure sufficient quantities of tendu leaves grown in the forest units in the State, the firm took leases for the collection of such leaves in the States of Bihar Maharashtra.
They actually imported tendu leaves under two railway consignments from Bihar to Saugor.
They informed the Divisional Forest Officer about the same and asked for permission for transport of the leaves and to utilise the said leaves for manufacture of bidis in their factories.
By letter dated July 27, 1965 the said Forest Officer intimated the firm that the imported leaves were not to be moved for bidi manufacture until permission was accorded for so doing.
The respondents ' grievance was that notwithstanding the above communication and in spite of the fact that they had not moved the imported leaves from their godowns, the Sub Divisional Forest Officer Saugor seized two quantities of such leaves of 9007 bags imported from Garwah Road, Bihar and 256 bags of tendu leaves imported from Bindoumaganj, Bihar and followed the same up by filing a complaint alleging contravention of section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Tendu Patta Wyapar Viniyaman) 84 0 Adhiniyam, 1964, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
The respondents filed a petition under article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the complaint.
The contention of the respondents (importers of the leaves) before the High Court was that the Act did not prohibit the import of tendu leaves from places outside the State nor was there any restriction on a manufacturer importing such leaves with the express object of consumption of the same, in his factory for the manufacture of bidis and in any event the Act or the Rules made thereunder did not purport to regulate the transport of tendu leaves imported from places outside the State.
On behalf of the State it was contended that transport of tendu leaves whether grown in the State or outside the State was completely prohibited by section 5(2) of the Act and regulation and control of transport of such imported leaves was necessary for the successful working of the State monopoly in the trade of tendu leaves envisaged by the Act.
Further the Act did not prohibit the import of tendu leaves and was not therefore violative of articles 31, 301 and 304 of the Constitution and the control of movement of tendu leaves after their import from another State was in no way repug nant to articles 301 and 304.
The High Court rejected the contentions of the State.
Hence the appeal.
In order to find out whether the action of the Forest Officer was justified, we have to look into the relevant provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder.
The Act as its preamble shows is one to make provision for regulating in the public interest the trade of tendu leaves by creation of State monopoly in such trade.
By section 1(2) it was to extend to the whole of the State and under sub section
(3) of section 1 it was to come into force in such area or areas and on such date or dates as the State Government may, by notification, specify.
The broad scheme of the Act appears to be as follows.
Under section 3 the State Government was empowered to divide every specified area defined in cl.
(h) of section 2 into such number of units as it may deem fit.
section 4 empowered the State Government to appoint agents in respect of different units for the purpose of purchase of and trade in tendu leaves on its behalf.
Under section 5(1); "On the issue of a notification under sub section (3) of section 1 in any area no perso n other than (a) the State Government; (b) an officer of State Government authorised in writing in that behalf; or 841 (c) an agent in respect of the unit in which the leaves have grown; shall purchase or transport tendu leaves.
" The two Explanations to this subsection show that purchase of tendu leaves from the State Government or its officers or agents was not to be deemed to be a purchase in contravention of the Act and a person having no interest in a holding but acquiring the right to collect tendu leaves grown on such holding was to be deemed to have purchased such leaves in contravention of the Act.
Sub section
(2) of the section allowed a grower of tendu leaves to transport them from any place within the unit wherein such leaves had grown to any other place in that unit and tendu leaves purchased from the State Government or any officer or agent of the Government by any person for manufacture of bidis within the State or by any person for sale outside the State could be transported by such person in accordance with the terms and conditions of a permit to be issued in that behalf.
section 7 empowered the State Government to fix prices at which tendu leaves were to be, purchased by it or its agent and under section 9 the State Government or their authorised officer or agent was to be, bound to purchase at the price fixed under section 7 leaves offered for sale at the depot, subject to the right of rejection of such leaves as were not fit for the manufacture of bidis.
Under section 1 1 all manufacturers of bidis and all exporters of tendu leaves had to get themselves registered in such manner as might be prescribed.
section 12 enabled the State Government to sell or dispose of tendu leaves purchased by it or its agent as therein prescribed.
Under section 1 5 any person contravening any of the provisions of the Act or the rules thereunder was liable to punishment, both with imprisonment and fine and tendu leaves in respect of which such contravention took place were liable to forfeiture by Government.
section 19 gave the Government power to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act.
Rule 4 framed under the Act lays down the kinds of transport permits which may be issued.
They are to be, of four types (i) for transport from collection depot to storage godown; (ii) for transport from one storage godown to another or to distribution centre; (iii) for transport from a distribution centre to Sattedars or Mazdoors ' and (iv) for transport outside the State.
The application for a transport permit is to be under rule 9 in form 'M ' and the permit to be issued is to be in form 'M. Form 'M ' gives the quantity of tendu leaves purchased, the place or places where they were stored, the destination to which they were to be transported and the place or places where transported leaves were to be stored.
Similar particulars are to be contained in a permit in form 'N '.
842 It was contended on behalf of the State that the High Court had gone wrong in taking the view that the object of the Act was confined to trading in tendu leaves grown in the State as disclosed by the above provisions.
It was urged that the embargo on purchase and transport of tendu leaves by section 5 was necessary for creation and preservation of the State monopoly in tendu leaves.
It was submitted that there was nothing in the Act, which on the face of it showed that tendu leaves mentioned in the different provisions were to be confined to leaves grown in the State.
It was further submitted that unless the State had the power to check the purchase of tendu leaves from outside the State and in any event to restrict the transport thereof within the State, the monopoly would not be effective.
It was urged further that transport of goods within the State was so essentially integrated with the trade in the goods that the restriction on transport should be upheld in the interest of the State monopoly.
We find ourselves unable to accept the contentions put forward by counsel on behalf of the State.
All the relevant provisions of the Act and the rules referred to above show that the legislature intended that everybody growing leaves within the State should offer the same to it or its agents in different units for sale and the State was bound to purchase every single lot of tendu leaves unless the same could be said to be unfit for the manufacture of bidis.
Prima facie trade in tendu leaves as was held by this Court in Vrajlal Manilal vs M. P. State(1) would consist of dealing in those leaves i.e. their purchase and sale but "transport of the leaves once purchased or sold would not prima facie be an organic or integral part of dealing in those leaves.
" It was further held in that case: :. a permit system which regulates the movement of leaves purchased by a manufacturer of bidis from the unit where they are purchased to his warehouse, then to the branches and to the sattedars cannot up to that stage be regarded as unreasonable in the light of the object of the Act, the economic conditions prevailing in the State, and the mischief which it seeks to cure.
At the same time to expect the manufacturer to get permits issued to his sattedars for distribution by them to the innumerable mazdoors of comparatively small quantities of these leaves would not only be unreasonable but frustrating.
" In that case there was no question of import of any tendu leaves from outside the State or the issue of any permits in that regard.
What was objected to was the insistence upon transport permits for the leaves to be distributed by the manufacturers to his innumerable sattedars and mazdoors under section 5 of the Act.
It was held that though the section "is couched in apparently wide language, (1) ; at 408.
843 the very object of the Act, as disclosed by its long title, contains inherent limitations against an absolute or as strictly regulated a ban as it would at first reading of the section appear.
" Though the Court there upheld the provisions relating to the creation of the monopoly in the public interest in the matter of sale and purchase of tendu leaves, it was not disposed to uphold the restrictions on movement to the extent it was sought to be enforced by the State in that case.
In coming to the above conclusion the Court relied on the dictum in Akadasi Padhan vs State of Orissa(1) "A law relating to a State monopoly cannot, in the context, include all the provisions contained in the said law whether they have direct relation with the creation of the monopoly or no the said expression should be construed to mean the law relating to the monopoly in its absolutely essential features.
If a law is passed creating a State monopoly, the Court should enquire what are the provisions of the said law which are basically and essentially necessary for creating the State monopoly.
It is only those essential and basic provisions which are protected by the latter part of article 19(6).
If there are other provisions made by the Act which are subsidiary, incidental or helpful to the operation of the monopoly, they do not fall under the said part and their validity must be judged under the first part of article 19(6).
In other words, the effect of the amendment made in article 19(6) is to protect the law relating to the creation of monopoly and that means that it is only the provisions of the law which are integrally and essentially connected with the creation of the monopoly that are protected.
The rest of the provisions which may be incidental do not fall under the, latter part of article 19(6) and would inevitably have to satisfy the test of the first part of article 19(6).
" It is settled law that where two constructions of a legislative provision are possible one consistent with the constitutionality of the measure impugned and the other offending the same, the Court will lean towards the first if it be compatible with the object and purpose of the impugned Act, the mischief which it sought to prevent ascertaining from relevant factors its true scope and meaning.
It was in the light of this principle that the High Court observed : "If section 5 of the Act or any of its provisions were to be construed as prohibiting the import of tendu leaves into (1) [1963] Supp.
2 S.C.R. 691.
844 the State or restricted within the State of imported leaves, then the provision would clearly be invalid as violative of articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution.
" Without expressing our views on the subject we hold that the entire provisions of the Act and the rules are consistent with and aim at the State monopoly in the trade of tendu leaves in case of leaves grown or _produced in the State and the legislature never intended that the monopoly should be operative even to the extent of banning import of tendu leaves from outside or stalling the tendu leaves once they found their way into the State from outside.
The transport of tendu leaves purchased outside but consigned to places within the, State to be used for the manufacture of bidis is not integrally connected with the State monopoly as envisaged in the Act.
It stands to reason that manufacturers of bidis in the State of Madhya Pradesh would not think of importing tendu leaves from distant places like, Bihar and Maharashtra if they could help it and it must be the exigencies of the situation which drives a manufacturer of bidis to such course of action.
In any event, the Act ought not to be construed so as to ban import of tendu leaves from outside the State or restrict their movement once they were within the State unless clear language was used in that behalf.
If and when such express embargo is imposed, a question may arise as to whether it offends the different provisions of Part XIII of the Constitution.
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
S.C. Appeal dismissed.

Output:
The respondent, a partnership firm of which the second respondent was a partner, carried on business as manufacturers of bidis at various places in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Being unable to secure sufficient tendu leaves locally, the firm took leases for the collection of such leaves in Bihar & Maharashtra.
They actually imported tendu leaves under two railway consignments from Bihar.
They informed the Divisional Forest Officer about the same and asked permission for transport of the leaves and to utilise them in their factories.
By letter, the D.F.O. informed the respondents that the leaves must not be moved for bidi manufacture until permission is given.
Respondents obeyed the order; but in spite of that, the Sub divisional Forest Officer seized two quantities of such leaves and filed a complaint alleging contravention of section 5 of Madhya Pradesh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964.
The respondent filed a petition under article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari quashing the complaint.
The contention of the respondents was that the Act did not prohibit import of tendu leaves from outside nor was there any restriction on a manufacturer to consume the same for the manufacture of bidis or the Rules made under the Act did not regulate the transport of the tendu leaves imported from outside.
The State however, contended that transport of tendu leaves whether grown locally or imported from outside was completely prohibited under section 5 of the Act, except by a license holder in terms of a permit issued.
S.5(1) provides that no person other than the State Government or an Officer of the State Government etc.
shall purchase or transport tendu leaves.
Further, the Act did not prohibit import of tendu leaves and so the Act is not violative of articles 31, 301 and 304 of the Constitution and the control of movement of tendu leaves after their import was in no way repugnant to articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution.
The State contended that unless the State had the power to check the purchase of tendu leaves from outside the State and to restrict the transport thereof within the State, the monopoly of State trading in tendu leaves would not be effective.
The High Court rejected these contentions of the State and hence the appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, HELD : (1) All the relevant provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder show that the legislature intended that everybody growing leaves within the State should offer the same to it to its agents in different units for sale and the State was bound to purchase every single lot of usable tendu leaves.
Prima facie trade in tendu leaves could consist of dealing in those leaves, i.e., their purchase and sale but transport 'of the leaves once purchased or sold would not prima facie be an organic or integral part of dealing in those leaves.
[842 D] 839 Vrajlal Manilal vs M.P. State ; , followed.
(ii) In the present case, the transport of tendu leaves purchased outside but consigned to places within the State to be used for the manufacture of bidis is not integrally connected with the State monopoly as envisaged in the Act.
The Act ought not to be construed so as to ban import of tendu leaves from outside the State or restrict their movement once they are within the State unless clear language was used in that behalf.
[844 C] Akadasi Padhan vs State of Orissa, [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 691, referred to.


Input:
Appeal No. 231/1955.
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated February 16, 1954, of the Patna High Court in Title Suit No. 105/1953.
446 N. C. Chatterjee, Sanjeev Choudhuri and Ganpat Rai, for the appellant.
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, P. K. Chatterjee and T. M. Sen, for respondent No. 1.
* Lal Narayan Sinha, Bajrang Sahai and R. C. Prasad, for respondent No. 2. 1960.
August 31.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO J.
This is an appeal from a decree of the Patna High Court.
The appellant is a Public Limited Company with its registered office at Calcutta.
A mining lease was granted to it by the Raja of Ramgarh on December 29, 1947, for a period of 999 years in respect of 3026 villages situate within the Ramgarh Estate and the appellant was put in possession thereof.
On February 1, 1950, the appellant granted a sub lease of two of the villages comprised in its grant to one Bhagat Singh for a term of 15 years.
In the meantime the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act (LIII of 1948), (hereinafter called the Act), had come into force along with the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 (hereinafter called the Rules), in the area in which the two villages lay.
Bhagat Singh then applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, for the grant of a certificate of approval under the Rules.
Thereupon the Deputy Commissioner, taking the view that the sub lease granted was in contravention of the Act and the Rules, filed a complaint on September 25, 1951, before a magistrate against two directors and the secretary of the appellant charging them with the breach of r. 45 of the Rules and also rr.
47 and 49 (now r. 51) read with r. 51 (now r. 53) and section 9 of the Act.
While the criminal case was going on, the appellant filed a suit challenging the validity and constitutionality of the Act and the Rules.
A number of grounds were taken in support of this challenge but it is not necessary now to set out all of them, as learned counsel for the appellant has confined his arguments only to two points, namely, (i) a sub lease is not covered by the definition of the term ' mining lease ' in section 3(d) of the 447 Act and therefore the Act and the Rules do not apply to a sub lease at all, and (ii) as these Rules were made under sections 5 and 6 of the Act and not under section 7 they have no application to a sub lease granted by a lessor, even after the coming into force of the Act and the Rules, where the lessor 's own lease was of a date anterior to the coming into force of the Act and the Rules.
The suit was resisted by the respondents and their defence was that the term ' mining lease ' included a sub lease and that the Rules framed under Bs.
5 and 6 of the Act were applicable to all sub leases granted after the Act and the Rules had come into force.
The High Court repelled the contentions raised by the appellant against the validity and constitutionality of the Act and the Rules.
It further held that the term 'mining lease ' as defined in section 3(d) of the Act included a sub lease and therefore the Act and the Rules applied to sub leases granted after the Act and the Rules came into force and it was immaterial that the lease granted to the appellant was anterior in time to the coming into force of the Act and the Rules.
On this view, the suit was dismissed.
Thereupon the appellant applied for a certificate which was granted and that is how the matter has come up before us.
The main question that falls for consideration is whether the term 'mining lease ' as defined in section 3(d) of the Act includes a sub lease.
Clause (d) of section 3 is in these terms: " mining lease ' means a lease granted for the purpose of searching for, winning, working, getting, making merchantable, carrying away, or disposing of mineral oils or for purposes connected therewith, and includes an exploring or a prospecting licence; ".
There is no specific mention of a sub lease in it.
But if one takes the plain meaning of the words used in section 3(d), it is clear that the term 'mining lease ' means any kind of lease granted for the purpose of searching for, winning, working, getting, making merchantable, 448 carrying away or disposing of minerals or for purposes connected therewith.
It is significant that the definition does not require that the lessor must be the proprietor; and so on a fair reading it would include a lease executed by the proprietor as much as a lease executed by the lessee from such a proprietor.
If we turn to the definition of 'lease ' in section 105 of the , we find that a lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property made for a certain time, express or implied or in perpetuity in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee who accepts the transfer on such terms.
What a lease therefore requires is a transferor and a transferee and a transfer of immovable property on the terms and conditions mentioned in section 105.
How the transferor gets his title to make a lease is immaterial so long as the transaction is of the nature defined in section 105.
Applying therefore the plain words of section 3(d) of the Act and the definition of lease as contained in section 105 of the , it is perfectly clear that there is a transferor in this case, (namely, the appellant) and a transferee (namely, Bhagat Singh) who has accepted the transfer; the transaction is with respect to immovable property and creates a right to enjoy such property for a certain term and for consideration on the conditions mentioned in it.
Though, therefore, the document may be termed a sub lease in view of the fact that the transferor is not the owner of the property transfer red but is itself a lessee, the transaction between the appellant and Bhagat Singh is nothing but a mining lease.
The terms ' sub lease ', ' under lease ' and "derivative lease ' are used conveniently to indicate not only that the transfer is a lease but also that the transferor is not the owner of the property but is a lessee ; but the transfer as between a lessee and a sub lessee is nonetheless a lease provided it satisfies the definition of section 105.
We may add that Ch.
V of the , which deals with leases of immovable 449 property has nowhere made any distinction between a lease and a sub lease and all the provisions of that Chapter which apply to a lease also apply to a sublease.
It is only when dealing with the rights and liabilities of the lessee that section 108(j) of the lays down that the lessee may transfer absolutely or by way of mortgage or sub lease the whole or any part of his interest in the property, and that is where one finds mention of a sub lease, namely, that it is a lease by a person who is himself a lessee.
But the fact that the lessor is himself a lessee and the transaction between him and the person in whose favour he makes the transfer by way of lease is called a sub lease does not in any way change the nature of the transfer as between them.
Therefore on the plain words of section 3(d) read with section 105 of the there can be no doubt that the term 'mining lease ' includes a sub lease. ' Learned counsel for the appellant referred in this connection to a number of statutes wherein a sub lease has been expressly stated to be included in the term 'lease '.
In the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, LXVII of 1957, which has replaced the Act, the term 'mining lease ' has been defined in section 3(c) as meaning a lease granted for the purpose of undertaking mining operations and includes a sublease.
The 1957 Act was enacted after the judgment of the High Court in this case and the legislature apparently thought it fit ex abundanti cautela to say that a sub lease is included within the term ' mining lease '.
In the corresponding English Act also as well as the English Law of Property, 1925, a lease has been defined to include a sub lease.
The fact however that in some laws a lease is defined to include a sub.
lease, does not mean that a lease cannot otherwise include a sub lease.
An example to the contrary is the , where the definition of the word 1 lease ' clearly includes a sub lease.
Learned counsel for the appellant also relied on certain decisions in which it was held that a lease did not include a sub lease.
Those decisions, however, turn on the particular terms of the enactment there under 450 consideration and are of no assistance in determining the question whether the term 'mining lease ' in the Act includes a mining sub lease.
Ordinarily, a lease will include a sub lease unless there is anything to the contrary in the particular law.
We may in this connection refer to the observations of Jessel, M. R., in Camberwell and South London Building Society vs Holloway (1) at p. 759: " The word `lease ' in law is a well known legal term of well defined import.
No lawyer has ever suggested that the title of the lessor makes any difference in the description of the instrument, whether the lease is granted by a freeholder or a copyholder with the licence of the Lord or by a man who himself is a leaseholder.
It being well granted for a term of years it is called a lease.
It is quite true that where the grantor of the lease holds for a term, the second instrument is called either an under lease or a derivative lease, but it is still a lease. . .".
We see nothing in the Act to indicate that the term ' mining lease ' as defined in a. 3(d) does not include a mining sub lease.
On the other hand, looking to the purpose and object with which the Act was passed, it seems to us quite clear that a sub lease must be included within the term 'mining lease ' as it obviously is within the plain words of section 3 (d).
That the Act was passed in the public interest is shown by the fact that it provides for the regulation of mines and oil fields and for the development of minerals.
The intention was that the mineral wealth of the country should be conserved and should be worked properly without waste and by persons qualified in that kind of work.
With that object in view section 5 inter alia provides for making rules as to the conditions on which mining leases may be granted and the maximum or minimum area and the period 'for which such lease may be granted as also the terms on which leases in respect of contiguous areas may be amalgamated, and the fixing of the maximum and minimum rent payable by a lessee (1) , 759 451 whether the mine is worked or not.
Section 6 provides for framing of rules for the conservation and development of minerals, the manner in which any mineral or any area as respects which the grant of mining lease is prohibited may be developed and the development of any mineral resources in any area by prescribing or regulating the use of engines, machinery or other equipment, and so on.
These provisions for the conservation, development and regulation of mining areas and minerals would be more or less completely frustrated if a mining sub lease was not included in the definition of the term 'mining lease ', for then all that would be necessary for a per.
son who wanted to avoid the law would be to interpose an intermediary between himself and the owner and get a sub lease from him which would be free from the regulatory control of the Act and the Rules. 'We are therefore of opinion that looking at the plain words of section 3(d) and the object and the purpose for which the Act was passed, it is clear that a mining sub lease is included within the definition of the term 'mining lease ' and there is nothing in the Act which militates against this.
We therefore hold that a mining sub lease made after the coming into force of the Act and the Rules is included in the term 'mining lease ' as defined in section 3 (d) and is subject to the Act and the Rules.
The argument in this connection is that a. 4 of the Act provides that no mining lease shall be granted after the commencement of the Act otherwise than in accordance with the rules framed under the Act and any mining lease granted otherwise shall be void and of 'no effect.
Sections 5 and 6 give power to the Central Government to make rules for purposes already set out above and refer to mining leases granted under section 4 Then comes section 7, which lays down that the Central Government may by notification in the official gazette make rules for the purpose of modifying or altering the terms and conditions of any mining lease 58 452 granted prior to the commencement of the Act so as to bring such lease into conformity with the rules framed under Be.
5 and 6.
It is urged that where a mining lease has been granted before the Act and the Rules came into force, it is only the rules framed under section 7 which will affect any sub lease granted by such a lessee even though the sub lease is after the date on which the Act and the Rules came into force.
Section 7 in our opinion was enacted for an entirely different purpose, as sub section
(2) thereof will show.
It is however not necessary to go into this matter further, for once it is held that a, sub lease is included in the term 'mining lease ', the rules made under sections 5 and 6 would apply to such a sub lease, if it is made after the Act and the Rules came into force.
In the present case, the sub lease was granted after the Act and the Rules came into force in the area with which the sub lease is concerned and therefore the sub lease would be governed by the Act and the Rules.
There is no question in this case of modifying or altering the terms and conditions of any mining lease granted prior to the commencement of the Act, for the Act and the Rules are being enforced with respect to a sub lease which is a mining lease, within the definition of that term in section 3(d), made 'after the Act and the Rules came into force.
No change is being made by the Rules in the terms and conditions of the mining lease granted to the appellant and all that has happened is that the appellant 's directors and secretary, are being prosecuted for granting a sub lease (which is a mining lease) against the provisions of the Act and the Rules after the Act came into force.
There is no force therefore in this contention of the appellant and it must be repelled.
There is no force in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed with costs.
, One set of hearing costs only.
Appeal dismissed.

Output:
The appellant, a limited company, which was the lessee of a mining lease granted a sub lease in respect of two of the villages comprised in its grant.
The secretary and two of the directors of the company were prosecuted for having contravened the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1948, and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, which were framed under it.
The appellant contended, firstly, that the sub lease was not covered by the definition of the term " Mining lease " of the Act and as such the Act and Rules did not apply to a sub lease at all ; and secondly, that as these rules were made under sections 5 and 6 of the Act and not under section 7 they have no application to a sub lease granted by a lessor, even after the coming into force of the Act and the Rules where the lessor 's own lease was of date anterior to the coming into force of the Act and the Rules.
Held, that the definition of " Mining lease " contained in section 3(d) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1048, does not require that the lessor must be a proprietor and its plain language read with section 5 of the , makes it clear that a mining lease includes one executed by a proprietor as much as a lease executed by the lessee from such proprietor.
The facts that the lessor is himself a lessee, and the transaction between him and the person in whose favour he makes the transfer by way of lease is called a sub lease does not in any way change the nature of the transfer as between them.
Held, further, that the Rules made under sections 5 and 6 of the Act would apply to a mining sub lease if it is made after the Act and the Rules came into force.


Input:
Civil Appeal No. 570 of 1976.
Appeal by Certificate from the Judgment and Order dated 9.2.1976 of the Madras High Court in Tax Case No. 104 of 1969.
T.A. Ramachandran, P.N. Ramaligam and A.T.M. Sampath for the Appellant.
628 V.Gauri Shanker, Manoj Arora, section Rajappa and Ms.
A.Subhashini for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN, J.
This is the assessee 's appeal form a judgment of the Madras High Court dated 10.1.1975 answering three questions referred to it by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
The reference related to the assessment year 1961 62, the previous year in respect of which commenced on 13.4.1960.
The judgment of the High Court is reported as (1976) 102 I.T.R.622.
The appellant assessee is a partnership firm.
Since 1949, it was carrying on, in Malaya, a money lending business and, as part of and incidental to the said business, a business in the purchase and sale of house properties, gardens and estates.
It had been reconstituted under a deed dated 26.3.1960.
The firm 's accounts for the year 1960 61, which commenced on 13.4.60, would normally have come to a close on or about the 13th April, 1961.
However, the firm closed its accounts as on 13.3.1961 with effect from which date it was dissolved.
Along with its income tax return for the assessment year 1961 62 filed on 10th April 1962, the assessee filed a profit and loss account and certain other statements.
In the profit and loss account, a sum of $ 1,01,248 was shown as "difference on revaluation of estates, gardens and house properties" on the dissolution of the firm on 13.3.61, such difference being $ 70,500 in respect of "house properties" and $ 30,748 in respect of estates and gardens.
In the memo of adjustment for income tax purposes, however, the above sum was deducted on the ground that it was not assessable either as revenue or capital.
A statement was also made before the officer that partner Ramanathan Chettiar, forming one group and the other partners forming another group, were carrying on business separately with the assets and liabilities that fell to their shares on the dissolution of the firm.
The Income tax Officer (I.T.O.) issued a notice under section 23(2) on the same day (10.4.1962) posting the hearing for the same day and completed the assessment also on the same day, after making a petty addition of Rs. 2083 paid as property tax in Malaya, and recording the following note: "Audit assessment Lakshmanan appears return filed I.T. 86 acknowledged in list of books scrutinised order dictated".
629 For the subsequent assessment year 1962 63, the assessee filed a return showing nil income along with a letter pointing out that the firm had been dissolved on 13.3.1961.
Thereafter, on 3.9.63, the I.T.O. wrote a letter to the assessee to the effect that the revaluation difference of $ 1,01,248 should have been brought to tax in the assessment year 1961 62 in view of the decision of the Madras High Court in Ramachari & Co. vs C.I.T., He called for the basis for the valuation and also for the assessee 's objections.
The assessee sent a reply stating that no profit or loss could be assessed on a revaluation of assets.
Relying on a circular of the Central Board of Revenue dated 21.6.1956, it was urged that the assessee was gradually winding up its business in Malaya and that therefore, the surplus would only be capital gains.
It was urged that the revaluation had been at a market price prevalent since 1.1.1954 and that, therefore, no capital gains were chargeable to tax.
The I.T.O. followed up his letter by a notice under section 148 read with section 147(b).
The assessee objected to the reassessment on two grounds: (1) that the circumstances did not justify the initiation of proceedings under section 147(b); and (2) that no assessable profits arose to the firm on the revaluation of assets on the eve of the dissolution of the firm.
Overruling these objections, the I.T.O. completed a reassessment on the firm after adding back the sum of Rs.1,58,057 (the equivalent of $ 1,01,248) to the previously assessed income.
The assessee 's successive appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal and reference, at its instance, to the High Court having failed,the assessee is before us.
Three questions of law were referred to the High Court by the Tribunal.
These were: "1.
Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the reassessment made on the assessee firm for the assessment year 1961 62 under section 147 of the Income tax Act is valid in Law? 2.
Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, assessment of the sum of $ 1,01,248 as revenue profit of the assessee firm chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1961 62 is justified in law? 3.
Whether, on the facts, and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in sustaining the assessment of the sum of $ 1,01,348 after having found that the Department Officers are bound by the Circular of the Central Board of Revenue?" 630 We may deal at the outset with the third question.
Though the High Court has dealt with this question at some length, we do not think any answer to this question can or need be furnished by us for the following reasons.
First, the assessee has not been able to place before us the circular of the Board on which reliance is placed.
It is not clear whether it is a circular or a communication of some other nature.
Second, the circular, to judge from its purport set out in the High Court 's judgment, seems to have been to the effect that the surplus arising from the sale of properties acquired by a money lender in the course of his business would be in the nature of capital gains and not of income.
Obviously such a proposition could not have been intended as a broad or general proposition of law, for the nature of the surplus on sale of assets would depend on the nature of the asset sold and this, in turn, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
In this case, no material was placed at any stage to show that the assets in question constituted the capital assets of the firm and not its stock in trade.
Third, the plea of the assessee which was in issue all through was that there was no sale of assets by the firm when its assets are distributed among its partners and that no profits whether capital or revenue could be said to arise to the firm merely because, at the time of the dissolution, the firm revalued its assets on the basis of market value or any other basis, for adjusting the mutual rights and liabilities of the partners on the dissolution of the firm.
The terms of the circular, as set out in the order of the High Court, cannot therefore be of any assistance to the assessee in answering the issues in this case.
We, therefore, do not answer the third question posed by the Tribunal.
Turning now to the first question, the relevant facts have already been noticed.
The following relevant and material facts viz. (i) the dissolution of the firm, (ii) the revaluation of its assets, (iii) the distribution thereof among two groups of its partners, and (iv) the division and crediting of the surplus on revaluation to the partner 's accounts were not only reflected in the balance sheet, the profit and loss account and the profit and loss adjustment account but were also mentioned in the statement filed before the I.T.O. along with the return.
Clearly, action u/s 148 read with clause (a) of s.147 could not be initiated in these circumstances but is action under clause (b) of that section also impermissible? That is the question.
We may now set out the provisions of clause (b) of section 147 for purposes of easy reference.
This clause which corresponds to section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 (`the 1922 Act ') permits initiation of reassessment of proceedings, "notwithstanding 631 that there has been no omission or failure as mentioned in clause (a) on the part of the assessee" provided "the Income tax Officer has, in consequence of information in his possession, reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment".
In the present case, on the information already on record and in view of the decision in Ramachari & Co. vs C.I.T., , there can be no doubt that the I.T.O. could reasonably come to the conclusion that income, profits and gains assessable for the assessment year 1961 62 had escaped assessment.
But is that belief reached "in consequence of information in his posession"? The assessee 's counsel says "no", for, says he, it is settled law that the "information" referred to in clause (b) above, should be "information" received by the I.T.O. after he had completed the original assessment.
Here it is pointed out that all the relevant facts as well as the decision in Ramachari (supra) had been available when the original assessment was completed on 10.4.1962.
Action cannot be taken under this clause merely because the I.T.O., who originally considered the surplus to be not assessable, has on the same facts and the same case law which had been available to him when he completed the assessment originally, changed his opinion and now thinks that the surplus should have been charged to tax.
The validity of the assessee 's argument has to be tested in the light of the decisions of this Court which have interpreted section 147(b) of the 1961 Act or its predecessor section 34(1)(b) of the 1922 Act and expounded its parameters.
We may start with the decision in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh vs I.T.O., S.C.
In this case it was held that the word "information" would include information as to the true and correct state of the law and would also cover information as to relevant judicial decisions.
In that case the I.T.O. had re opened the assessment on the basis of a subsequent decision of the Privy Council and this was upheld.
Referring to the use of the word "escape" in the section, the Court observed.
"In our opinion, even in a case where a return has been submitted, if the income tax Officer erroneously fails to tax a part of asessable income, it is a case where the said part of the income has escaped assessment.
The appellant 's attempt to put a very narrow and artificial limitation on the meaning of the word "escape" in section 34(1)(b) cannot, therefore, succeed." (underlining ours) 632 The meaning of the word "information" was again explained thus in C.I.T. vs A. Raman & Co., [1968] 67 I.T.R. 11 SC: "The expression `information ' in the context in which it occurs must, in our judgment, mean instruction or knowledge derived from an external source concerning facts or particulars, or as to law relating to a matter bearing on the assessment. .
Jurisdiction of the Income tax Officer to reassess income arises if he has in consequence of information in his possession reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
That information, must, it is true, have come into the possession of the Income tax Officer after the previous assessment, but even if the information be such that it could have been obtained during the previous assessment from an investigation of the materials on the record, or the facts disclosed thereby or from other enquiry or research into facts or law, but was not in fact obtained, the jurisdiction of the Income tax Officer is not affected." (underlining ours) We may next refer to Kalyanji Mavji & Co. vs C.I.T., [1976 102] I.T.R. 287.
It is unnecessary to set out the facts of this case.
It is sufficient to refer to the enunciation of the law regarding the scope of section 34(1)(b) as culled out from the earlier decisions of this Court on the subject.
At page 296 the Court observed: "On a combined review of the decisions of this Court the following tests and principles would apply to determine the applicability of section 34(1)(b) to the following categories of cases: (1) where the information is as to the true and correct state of the law derived from relevant judicial decisions; (2) where in the original assessment the income liable to tax has escaped assessment due to oversight, inadvertence or a mistake committed by the Income tax Officer.
This is obviously based on the principle that the taxpayer would not be allowed to take advantage of an oversight or mistake committed by the taxing authority; 633 (3) where the information is derived from an external source of any kind.
Such external source would include discovery of new and important matters or knowledge of fresh facts which were not present at the time of the original assessment; (4) where the information may be obtained even from the record of the original assessment from an investigation of the materials on the record, or the facts disclosed thereby or from other enquiry or research into facts or law." Before applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, we may refer to two earlier decisions of the Madras High Court which have been followed in the judgment under appeal.
In Salem Provident Fund Society Ltd. vs C.I.T., , the Income tax officer, in calculating the annual profits of an insurance company, had, under the statute to work out the difference between the deficiencies as shown in the actuarial valuation of the company in respect of two successive valuation periods.
At the time of original assessment, the Income tax Officer, by mistake, added the two deficiencies instead of subtracting one from the another.
This mistake he committed not in one assessment year but in two assessment years.
Subsequently, he discovered his mistake and initiated proceedings under section 34(1)(b).
The contention urged on behalf of the assessee was that all the statements, on the basis of which the re assessment proceedings were taken, were already on record and that, in such a case, there was no `information ' which would justify the reassessment.
An argument was also raised that the rectification, if any, could have been carried out only under section 35 and not under section 34.
These contentions were repelled.
In regard to the former objection, the High Court pointed out: "We are unable to accept the extreme proposition that nothing that can be found in the record of the assessment, which itself would show escape of assessment or under assessment, can be viewed as information which led to the belief that there has been escape from assessment or under assessment.
Suppose a mistake in the original order of assessment is not discovered by the Income tax Officer himself on further scrutiny but it is brought to this notice by another assessee or even by a subordinate or a superior officer, that would appear to be information disclosed to the Income tax Officer.
if the mistake itself is not extraneous 634 to the record and the informant gathered the information from the record, the immediate source of information to the Income tax Officer in such circumstances is in one sense extraneous to the record.
It is difficult to accept the position that while what is seen by another in the record is `information ' what is seen by the Income tax Officer himself is not information to him.
In the latter case he just informs himself.
It will be information in his possession within the meaning of section 34.
In such cases of obvious mistakes apparent on the face of the record of assessment that record itself can be a source of information, if that information leads to a discovery or belief that there has been an escape of assessment or under assessment.
A similar question arose in CIT vs Rathinasabapathy Mudaliar, In that case the assessee, who was a partner in a firm, did not include in his return the income of his minor son admitted to the benefits of the partnership as required by section 16(3) of the 1922 Act.
The minor son submitted a separate return and was assessed on this income.
Subsequently, the Income tax Officer "discovered" his error in not assessing the father thereon and started re assessment proceedings.
The re assessment was upheld by the Madras High Court on the same logic as had been applied in Salem Provident Fund Society Ltd. case (supra).
The above line of thinking has not only held the field for about thirty years now but has also received approval in Anandji Haridas and Co. (P) Ltd. vs S.P. Kushare, Sales Tax Officer, [1968] 21 S.T.C. 326.
This issue has further been considered in the decision of this Court in the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society vs C.I.T. (the IENS case, for short) [1979] I.T.R. 996.
In this case the income of the assessee derived by letting out certain portions of the building owned by it to its members as well as to outsiders was being assessed as business income.
In the course of audit, an internal audit party expressed the view that the money realised by the assessee on account of the occupation of its conference hall and rooms should have been assessed under the head "income from property" and not as business income.
The Income tax Officer thereupon initiated re assessment proceedings and this was upheld by the Tribunal.
On a direct reference under s.257 of the Act, this Court held that the opinion of the audit party on a point of law could not be regarded as "information" and that the initiation of the reassessment proceedings was not justified.
It was contended for the Revenue, that the reassessment proceedings would 635 be valid even on this premise.
Dealing with this argument, the Court observed: "Now, in the case before us, the ITO had, when he made the original assessment, considered the provisions of sections 9 and 10.
Any different view taken by him afterwards on the application of those provisions would amount to a change of opinion on material already considered by him.
The revenue contends that it is open to him to do so, and on that basis to reopen the assessment under section 147(b).
Reliance is placed on Kalyanji Mavji & Co. vs CIT, , where a Bench of two learned, Judges of this Court observed that a case where income had escaped assessment due to the "oversight, inadvertence or mistake" of the ITO must fall within section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.
It appears to us, with respect, that the proposition is stated too widely and travels farther than the statute warrants in so far as it can be said to lay down that if, on re appraising the material considered by him during the original assessment, the ITO discovers that he has committed an error inconsequence of which income has escaped assessment, it is open to him to reopen the assessment.
In our opinion, an error discovere on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power.
That was the view taken by this Court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh vs CIT, [1959] 35 I.T.R. 1; CIT vs A. Raman & Co., and Bankipur Club Ltd. vs CIT and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course.
Any observation in Kalyanji Mavji & Co. vs CIT, suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law." (underlining ours) The Court proceeded further to observe: "A further submission raised by the revenue on section 147(b) of the Act may be considered at this stage.
It is urged that the expression "information" in section 147(b) refers to the realisation by the ITO that he has committed an error when making the original assessment.
It is said that, when upon receipt of the audit note the ITO discovers or realizes that a mistake has been committed in the original 636 assessment, the discovery of the mistake would be "information" within the meaning of section 147(b).
The submission appears to us inconsistent with the terms of section 147(b) Plainly, the statutory provision envisages that the ITO must first have information in his possession, and then in consequence of such information he must have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment.
The realisation that income has escaped assessment is covered by the words "reason to believe", and it follows from the "information" received by the ITO.
The information is not the realisation, the information gives birth to the realisation.
" Sri Ramachandran submits that these decisions support his contention that reassessment proceeding can be validly initiated only if there is some information received by the I.T.O. from an external source after the completion of the original assessment but not in a case like the present where there is nothing more before the I.T.O. than what was available to him when the original assessment was completed.
He also submits that the observations in the IENS case have cast doubts on the propositions enunciated in Kalyanji Mavji 's case (supra) and reiterates the proposition that reassessment proceedings cannot be availed of to revise, on the same material, the opinion formed or conclusion arrived at earlier in favour of the assessee.
On the other hand, Dr. Gaurisankar, appearing for the Revenue, mentioned that the decision in the IENS case holding that the opinion of an audit party would not constitute `information ' and qualifying the principles enunciated in Kalyanji Mavji is pending consideration by a larger Bench of this Court.
He, however, submitted that the reassessment in this case would be valid even on the strength of the observations in the IENS case.
We shall proceed to consider the correctness of this submission.
We have pointed out earlier that Kalyanji Mavji (supra) outlines four situations in which action under S.34(1)(b) can be validly initiated.
The IENS case has only indicated that proposition (2) outlined in this case and extracted earlier may have been somewhat widely stated; it has not cast any doubt on the other three propositions set out in Kalyanji Mavji 's case.
The facts of the present case squarely fall within the scope of propositions 2 and 4 enunciated in Kalyanji Mavji 's case.
Proposition (2) may be briefly summarised as permitting action even on a "mere change of opinion".
This is what has been doubted in the IENS case (supra) and we shall discuss its application to this case a 637 little later.
But, even leaving this out of consideration, there can be no doubt that the present case is squarely covered by proposition (4) set out in Kalyanji Mavji & Co. (supra).
This proposition clearly envisages a formation of opinion by the Income tax Officer on the basis of material already on record provided the formation of such opinion is consequent on "information" in the shape of some light thrown on aspects of facts or law which the I.T.O. had not earlier been conscious of.
To give a couple of illustrations, suppose an I.T.O., in the original assessment, which is a voluminous one involving several contentions, accepts a plea of the assessee in regard to one of the items that the profits realised on the sale of a house is a capital realisation not chargeable to tax.
Subsequently he finds, in the forest of papers filed in connection with the assessment, several instances of earlier sales of house property by the assessee.
That would be a case where the I.T.O. derives information from the record on an investigation or enquiry into facts not originally undertaken.
Again, suppose if I.T.O. accepts the plea of an assessee that a particular receipt is not income liable to tax.
But, on further research into law he finds that there was a direct decision holding that category of receipt to be an income receipt.
He would be entitled to reopen the assessment under s.147(b) by virtue of proposition (4) of Kalyanji Mavji.
The fact that the details of sales of house properties were already in the file or that the decision subsequently come across by him was already there would not affect the position because the information that such facts or decision existed comes to him only much later.
What then, is the difference between the situations envisaged in propositions (2) and (4) of Kalyanji Mavji (supra)? The difference, if one keeps in mind the trend of the judicial decisions, is this.
Proposition (4) refers to a case where the I.T.O. initiates reassessment proceedings in the light of "information" obtained by him by an investigation into material already on record or by research into the law applicable thereto which has brought out an angle or aspect that had been missed earlier, for e.g., as in the two Madras decisions referred to earlier.
Proposition (2) no doubt covers this situation also but it is so widely expressed as to include also cases in which the I.T.O., having considered all the facts and law, arrives at a particular conclusion, but reinitiates proceedings because, on a reappraisal of the same material which had been considered earlier and in the light of the same legal aspects to which his attention had been drawn earlier, he comes to a conclusion that an item of income which he had earlier consciously left out from the earlier assessment should have been brought to tax.
In other words, as pointed out in IENS case, it also 638 ropes in cases of a "bare or mere change of opinion" where the I.T.O. (very often a successor officer) attempts to reopen the assessment because the opinion formed earlier by himself (or, more often, by a predecessor I.T.O.) was, in his opinion, incorrect.
Judicial decisions had consistently held that this could not be done and the IENS case (supra) has warned that this line of cases cannot be taken to have been overruled by Kalyanji Mavji (supra).
The second paragraph from the judgment in the IENS case earlier extracted has also reference only to this situation and insists upon the necessity of some information which make the ITO realise that he has committed an error in the earlier assessment.
This paragraph does not in any way affect the principle enumerated in the two Madras cases cited with approval in Anandji Haridas, [1986] 21 S.T.C. 326.
Even making allowances for this limitation placed on the observations in Kalyanji Mavji, the position as summarised by the High Court in the following words represents, in our view, the correct position in law: "The result of these decisions is that the statute does not require that the information must be extraneous to the record.
It is enough if the material, on the basis of which the reassessment proceedings are sought to be initiated, came to the notice of the Income tax Officer subsequent to the original assessment.
If the Income tax Officer had considered and formed an opinion on the said material in the original assessment itself, then he would be powerless to start the proceedings for the reassessment.
Where, however, the Income tax Officer had not considered the material and subsequently come by the material from the record itself, then such a case would fall within the scope of section 147(b) of the Act.
" Let us now examine the position in the present case keeping in mind the narrow but real distinction pointed out above.
On behalf of the assessee, it is emphasised (a) that the amount of surplus is a very substantial amount,(b) that full details of the manner in which it had resulted had been disclosed, (c) that the profit and loss account, the profit and loss adjustment account and statement made before the I.T.O. had brought into focus the question of taxability of the surplus and (d) that decision in Ramachari 's case had been reported by 10.4.1962.
No Income tax Officer can be presumed to have completed the assessment without looking at all this material and the said decision.
No doubt, some doubt had been thrown as to whether a statement had been given at the time of original assessment that the amount 639 of surplus was not taxable as an income or a capital gain but the case has proceeded on the footing that such a statement was there before the officer.
This, therefore, is nothing but a case of "change of opinion".
On the other hand, the authorities and the Tribunal have drawn attention to the fact that the return, the section 143(2) notice and assessment were all on the same day and counsel for the Revenue urged that obviously, in his haste, the I.T.O. had not looked into the facts at all.
It is urged that no Income tax Officer who had looked into the facts and the law could have failed to bring the surplus to tax in view of then recent pronouncement in Ramachari 's case.
Dr. Gaurishankar submitted that the Tribunal has found that the I.T.O. "had acted mechanically in accepting the return without bringing his mind to play upon the entry in the statement with reference to the distribution of the assets".
He pointed out that there is no evidence of any enquiry with reference to this aspect and that, the amount involved being sufficiently large, the I.T.O., if he had been aware of the existence of the entry would certainly have discussed it.
He urged that the question whether the I.T.O. had considered this matter at the time of the original assessment or not is purely a question of fact and the Tribunal 's conclusion thereon having been endorsed by the High Court, there is no justification to interfere with it at this stage.
We think there is force in the argument on behalf of the assessee that, in the face of all the details and statement placed before the I.T.O. at the time of the original assessment, it is difficult to take the view that the Income tax Officer had not at all applied his mind to the question whether the surplus is taxable or not.
It is true that the return was filed and the assessment was completed on the same date.
Nevertheless, it is opposed to normal human conduct that an officer would complete the assessment without looking at the material placed before him.
It is not as if the assessment record contained a large number of documents or the case raised complicated issues rendering it probable that the I.T.O. had missed these facts.
It is a case where there is only one contention raised before the I.T.O. and it is, we think, impossible to hold that the Income tax Officer did not at all look at the return filed by the assessee or the statements accompanying it.
The more reasonable view to take would, in our opinion, be that the Income tax Officer looked at the facts and accepted the assessee 's contention that the surplus was not taxable.
But, in doing so, he obviously missed to take note of the law laid down in Ramachari which there is nothing to show, had been brought to his notice.
When he subsequently became aware of the decision, he initiated proceedings under section 147(b).
The material which constituted information and on 640 the basis of which the assessment was reopened was the decision in Ramachari.
This material was not considered at the time of the original assessment.
Though it was a decision of 1961 and the I.T.O. could have known of it had he been diligent, the obvious fact is that he was not aware of the existence of the decision then and, when he came to know about it, he rightly initiated proceedings for assessment.
We may point out that the position here is more favorable to the Revenue than that which prevailed in the Madras cases referred to earlier.
There, what the I.T.O. had missed earlier was the true purport of the relevant statutory provisions.
It seems somewhat difficult to believe that the I.T.O. could have failed to read properly the statutory provisions applicable directly to facts before him (though that is what seems to have happened).
Perhaps an equally plausible view, on the facts, could have been taken that he had considered them and decided, in one case, not to apply them and, in the other, on a wrong construction thereof.
In the present case, on the other hand, the material on which the I.T.O. has taken action is a judicial decision.
This had been pronounced just a few months earlier to the original assessment and it is not difficult to see that the I.T.O. must have missed it or else he could not have completed the assessment as he did.
Indeed it has not been suggested that he was aware of it and yet chose not to apply it.
It is therefore much easier to see that the initiation of reassessment proceedings here is based on definite material not considered at the time of the original assessment.
In the above view of the matter, we uphold the High Court 's view on the first question.
The second question raises a more difficult problem.
There can be no doubt that the decision of the Madras High Court in Ramachari squarely covers the situation.
Ramachari holds that the principle of valuing the closing stock of a business at cost or market at the option of the assessee is a principle that would hold good only so long as there is a continuing business and that where a business is discontinued, whether on account of dissolution or closure or otherwise, by the assessee, then the profits cannot be ascertained except by taking the closing stock at market value.
Ramachari has subsequently been followed by the Kerala High Court in Popular Workshops vs Commissioner of Income Tax, and in Popular Automobiles vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Shri Ramachandran contends that the decision in Ramachari 641 does not lay down the correct law.
He submits than, while it is no doubt true that the closing stock has to be valued, the well settled principle is that it should be valued, at cost or market whichever is lower and there is no justification for laying down a different principle for valuation of the closing stock at the point of discontinuance of business unless the goods are actually sold by the assessee at the time of discontinuance.
Further, it has been held by a series of decisions of this Court that when a firm is dissolved and the assets are distributed among the partners, there is no sale or transfer of the assets of the firm to the various partners: vide, Addanki Narayanppa vs Bhaskara Krishnappa, ; ; CIT vs Dewas Cine Corporation, ; CIT vs 2Bankey Lal Vaidya, ; Malabar Fisheries Co. vs C.I.T., and in Sunil Siddharthbhai vs C.I.T., He submits that, in logical sequence, dissolution comes first and distribution of assets comes later.
Therefore, revaluation of the assets of a firm, which is only for the division of the assets among the partners on a real and not a notional basis, is part of the division of the assets and therefore logically, in point of time, subsequent to the dissolution of the firm.
Since the revaluation takes place after the dissolution no profits can be said to have accrued to the firm by the process of revaluation.
The revaluation of the assets is not in the course of business and is not an activity which can partake of the nature of trade.
Assuming but not conceding that it is possible to have a revaluation of the assets, for example, stock in trade before dissolution, any excess which arises on the revaluation is only an imaginary or notional profit and cannot be brought to tax for the following reasons: (i) As a result of such revaluation, there can be no profit, because the firm cannot make a profit out of itself: Vide Kikabhai Premchand vs C.I.T., (ii) The process of revaluation of stock by itself cannot bring in any real profits: vide C.I.T. vs K.A.R.K. Firm, [1934]2 I.T.R. 183; Chainrup Sampatram vs C.I.T., [1953) and C.I.T. V. Hind Construction ltd., [1972] 83 I.T.R. 211; and (iii) It is well settled that what is taxable under the income tax law is only real income vide C.I.T. vs M/s Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co., [1962] 46 I.T.R. 144 and C.I.T. vs Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd., There is, therefor, no principle by which the stock in trade can be valued at market price so as to bring to tax the notional profits which might in future be realised as a result of the sale of the stock in trade.
642 The question posed before us is a difficult one.
We think, however, that the High Court was right in pointing out that the several decisions relied upon for the assessee as to the nature of the transaction by which a firm, on dissolution, distributes its assets among its partners, have no relevance in the present case.
As the High Court rightly observed, those cases relate to what happens after or in consequence of the dissolution of a firm whereas we are here concerned with a question that arises before or at the time of dissolution.
What we have to decide is the basis on which, in making up the accounts of a firm upto the date of dissolution, the closing stock with the firm as at a point of time immediately prior to the dissolution is to be valued.
It is this principle that has been decided in Ramachari and the High Court decisions following it (including the one under appeal) and the question is whether they lay down the correct law.
In the first place, it is settled law that the true trading results of a business for an accounting period cannot be ascertained without taking into account the value of the stock in trade remaining at the end of the period.
Though, as pointed out by this Court in Chainrup Sempatram vs C.I.T., it is a misconception to think that any profit arises out of the valuation of closing stock, it is equally true that such valuation is a necessary element in the process of determining the trading results of the period.
This is true in respect of any method of accounting and in C.I.T. vs Krishnaswamy Mudaliar, this Court pointed out that, even where the assessee is following the cash system of accounting, the valuation of closing stock cannot be dispensed with.
In this decision, this Court quoted with approval the following observations in C.I.R. vs Cock, Russel & Co. Ltd. "There is no word in the statutes or rules which deals with this question of valuing stock in trade.
There is nothing in the relevant legislation which indicates that in computing the profits and gains of a commercial concern the stock in trade at the start of the accounting period should be taken in and that the amount of the stock in trade at the end of the period should also be taken in.
It would be fantastic not to do it: it would be utterly impossible accurately to assess profits and gains merely on a statement of receipts and payments or on the basis of turnover.
It has long been recognised that the right method of assessing profits and gains is to take into account the value of the stock in trade at the beginning and the value of the stock in trade at the 643 end as two of the items in the computation.
I need not cite authority for the general proposition, which is admitted at the Bar, that for the purposes of ascertaining profits and gains the ordinary principles of commercial accounting should be applied, so long as they do not conflict with any express provision of the relevant statutes.
" Next the principles as to the method of valuation of the closing stock are equally well settled.
Lord President Clyde set these out in Whimster & Co. vs C.I.R., in the following words: "In computing the balance of profits and gains for the purposes of income tax,. two general and fundamental commonplaces have always to be kept in mind.
In the first place, the profits of any particular year or accounting period must be taken to consist of the difference between the receipts from the trade or business during such year or accounting period and the expenditure laid out to earn those receipts.
In the second place, the account of profit and loss to be made up for the purpose of ascertaining that difference must be framed consistently with the ordinary principles of commercial accounting, so far as applicable, and in conformity with the rules of the Income tax Act, or of that Act as modified by the provisions and schedules of the Acts regulating excess profits duty, as the case may be.
For example, the ordinary principles of commercial accounting require that in the profit and loss account of a merchant 's manufacturer 's business the values of the stock in trade at the beginning and at the end of the period covered by the account should be entered at cost or market price, whichever is the lower; although there is nothing about this in the taxing statutes.
" The principle behind permitting the assessee to value the stock at cost is very simple.
In the words of Bose, J. In Kikabhai Premchand vs C.I.T., [1953] 24 I.T.R. 506 S.C. it is this: "The appellant 's method of book keeping reflects the true position.
As he makes his purchases he enters his stock at the cost price on one side of the accounts.
At the close of the year he enters the value of any unsold stock at cost on the other side of the accounts thus cancelling out the entries relating to the sum unsold stock earlier in the 644 accounts; and then that is carried forward as the opening balance in the next year 's account.
This cancelling out of the unsold stock from both sides of the accounts leaves only the transactions on which there have been actual sales and gives the true and actual profit or loss on his year 's dealings.
" As against this, the valuation of the closing stock at market value invariably will create a problem.
For if the market value is higher than cost, the accounts will reflect notional profits not actually realised.
On the other hand, if the market value is less, the assessee will get the benefit of a notional loss he has not incurred.
Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier, the ordinary principles of commercial accounting permit valuation "at cost or market, whichever is the lower".
The rationale behind this has been explained by Patanjali Sastri, C.J. in Chainrup Sampatram vs C.I.T., , S.C. where an attempt was made to value the closing stock at a market value higher than cost.
The learned Chief Justice observed: "It is wrong to assume that the valuation of the closing stock at market rate has, for its object, the bringing into charge any appreciation in the value of such stock.
The true purpose of crediting the value of unsold stock is to balance the cost of those goods entered on the other side of the account at the time of their purchase, so that the cancelling out of the entries relating to the same stock from both sides of the account would leave only the transactions on which there have been actual sales in the course of the year showing the profit or loss actually realised on the year 's trading.
As pointed out in paragraph 8 of the Report of the Committee on Financial Risks attaching to the holding of Trading Stocks, 1919, "As the entry for stock which appears in a trading account is merely intended to cancel the charge for the goods purchased which have not been sold, it should necessarily represent the cost of the goods.
If it is more or less than the cost, then the effect is to state the profit on the goods which actually have been sold at the incorrect figure. .
From this rigid doctrine one exception is very generally recognised on prudential grounds and is now fully sanctioned by custom, viz., the adoption of market value at the date of making up accounts, if that value is less, than cost.
It is of course an anticipation of the loss that may be made on those goods in 645 the following year, and may even have the effect, if prices rise again, of attributing to the following year 's results a greater amount of profit than the difference between the actual sale price and the actual cost price of the goods in question" (extracted in paragraph 281 of the Report of the Committee on the Taxation of Trading Profits presented to British Parliament in April 1951).
While anticipated loss is thus taken into account, anticipated profit in the shape of appreciated value of the closing stock is not brought into the account, as no prudent trader would care to show increased profit before its actual realisation.
This is the theory underlying the rule that the closing stock is to be valued at cost or market price whichever is the lower, and it is now generally accepted as an established rule of commercial practice and accountancy.
" From the above passage, it will be seen that the proper practice is to value the closing stock at cost.
That will eliminate entries relating to the same stock from both sides of the account.
To this rule custom recognises only one exception and that is to value the stock at market value if that is lower.
But on no principle can one justify the valuation of the closing stock at a market value higher than cost as that will result in the taxation of notional profits the assessee has not realised.
The High Court in Ramachari has, however, outlined another exception and seems to have rested this on two considerations.
The first is the observation of Lord Buckmaster in C.I.T. vs Ahmedabad New Cotton Mills Co. Ltd., [1930] L.R. 57 I.A. 21 to the following effect: "The method of introducing stock into each side of a profit and loss account for the purpose of determining the annual profits is a method well understood in commercial circles and does not necessarily depend upon exact trade valuations being given to each article of stock that is so introduced.
The one thing that is essential is that there should be a definite method of valuation adopted which should be carried through from year to year, so that in case of any division from strict market values in the entry of the stock at the close of one year it will be rectified by the accounts in the next year.
" From these observations, the High Court inferred: "It is obvious from the above that the privilege of valuing 646 the opening and closing stock in a consistent manner is available only to continuing business and that it cannot be adopted where the business comes to an end and the stock in trade has to be the disposed of in order to determine the exact position of the business on the date of closure. " The second consideration which prevailed with the High Court is reflected in the following passage from the judgment: "It seems to us that none of these cases has any application to the facts of the present case .
There is no authority directly in point dealing with this question, where a partnership concern dissolves its business in the course of the accounting year, what is the basis on which the stock in trade has to be valued as on the date of dissolution.
We have accordingly to deal with the matter on first principles.
The case of a firm which goes into liquidation forms a close parallel to the present case.
In such a case all the stock in trade and other assets of the business will have to be sold and their value realised.
It cannot be controverted that it is only by doing so that the true state of the profits or losses of the business can be arrived at.
The position is not very different when the partnership ceases to exist in the course of the accounting year.
The fact that Ramachari, one of the ex partners, took over the entire stock and continued to run the business on his own, is not relevant at all, when we consider the profits or losses of the partnership ' which has come to an end.
It should, therefore, follow that in order to arrive at the correct picture of the trading results of the partnership on the date when it ceases to function, the valuation of the stock in hand should be made on the basis of the prevailing market price.
" We are not quite sure that the first of the considerations that prevailed with the High Court is relevant in the present case.
Even in a continuing business, the valuation at market value is permissible only when it is less than cost; it is not quite certain whether the rules permit an assessee if he so desires to value closing stock at market value where it is higher than cost.
But, in either event, it is allowed to be done because its effect can be offset over a period of time.
But here, where the business comes to a close, no future adjustment of an over 647 or under valuation is possible, In this context, it is difficult to see how valuation, at other than cost, can be justified on the principle of Ahmedabad Advance Mills case (supra).
We, however, find substance in the second consideration that prevailed with the High Court.
The decision in Muhammad Hussain Sahib vs Abdul Gaffor Sahib, [1950] 1 M.L.J.81 correctly sets out the mode of taking accounts regarding the assets of a firm.
While the valuation of assets during the subsistence of the partnership would be immaterial and could even be notional, the position at the point of dissolution is totally different: "But the situation is totally different when the firm is dissolved or when a partner retires.
The settlement of his account must be not on a notional basis but on a real basis, that is every asset of the partnership should be converted into money and the account of each partner settled on that basis. .
The assets have to be valued, of course, on the basis of the market value on the date of the dissolution . " This applies equally well to assets which constitute stock in trade.
There can be no manner of doubt that, in taking accounts for purposes of dissolution, the firm and the partners, being commercial man, would value the assets only on a real basis and not at cost or at their other value appearing in the books.
A short passage from Pickles on Accountancy (Third Edn), p. 650 will make this clear: "In the event of the accounts being drawn up to the date of death or retirement, no departure from the normal procedure arises, but it will be necessary to see that every revaluation required by the terms of the partnership agreement is made.
It has been laid down judicially that, in the absence of contrary agreement, all assets and liabilities must be taken at a "fair value," not merely a "book value" basis, thus involving recording entries for both appreciation and depreciation of assets and liabilities.
This rule is applicable, notwithstanding the omission of a particular item from the books, e.g. investments, goodwill (Cruikshank vs Sutherland).
Obviously, the net effect of the revaluation will be a profit or loss divisible in the agreed profit or loss sharing ratios.
" 648 The real rights of the partners cannot be mutually adjusted on any other basis.
This is what happened in Ramachari.
Indeed, this is exactly what the partners in this case have done and, having done so, it is untenable for them to contend that the valuation should be on some other basis.
Once this principle is applied and the stock in trade is valued at market price, the surplus, if any, has to get reflected as the profits of the firm and has to be charged to tax.
The view taken by the High Court has held the field for about thirty years now and we see no reason to disagree even if a different view were possible.
For these reasons, we agree with the answer given by the High Court to the second question as well.
The appeal fails and is dismissed.
But we would make no order regarding costs.
R.N.J. Appeal dismissed.

Output:
The Appellant Assessee, a partnership firm was engaged mainly, in Malaya, in money lending business since 1949 and incidental to this business was also doing the business of sale and purchase of house properties, gardens and estates.
It was reconstituted under a deed dated 26.3.1960.
The firm was dissolved on 13.3.1961 and closed its accounts with effect from that date.
In its income tax return filed on 10.4.1962 for the assessment year 1961 62 it had filed a profit and loss account wherein amount of $.1,01,248 equivalent of Rs.1,58,057 was shown as "difference on revaluation of the estates, gardens and house properties" on the dissolution of the firm.
In the memo of adjustment for income tax purposes this amount was deducted as being not assessable either as revenue or capital.
The Income Tax Officer issued notice under section 23(2) of the Act on that very day and completed the assessment also on the same day after making a petty addition of Rs.2088 paid as property tax in Malaya.
When for the subsequent year 1962 63, the assessee filed its return showing nil income stating in the forwarding letter that the Firm had been dissolved on 13.3.1961, the I.T.O. wrote to the assessee that the revaluation difference of Rs.1,58,057 should have been brought to tax in the previous year.
The assessee replied that no profit or loss could be assessed on a revaluation of assets, that the assessee was gradually winding up its business in Malaya, the surplus would be only capital 625 gains and that revalutation had been at the market price prevalent since 1954 and thus no capital gains were chargeable to tax.
Not satisfied, the I.T.O. issued a notice under section 148 read with Section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The assessee filed objections.
Overruling all the objections, the Income Tax Officer completed reassessment of the assessee Firm adding back the sum of Rs. 1,58,057 to the previously assessed income.
Having failed right upto the High Court, the assessee came in appeal before this Court.
Dismissing the appeal, affirming the decision of the High Court, this Court.
HELD: (1) The proceedings u/s 147(b) were validly initiated.
The facts of this case squarely fall within the scope of propositions (2) and (4) enunciated in Kalyanji Mavji 's case.
Proposition (2) may be briefly summarised as permitting action even on a "mere change of opinion".
This is what has been doubted in the IENS case.
But, even leaving this out of consideration, there can be no doubt that the present case is squarely covered by proposition (4) set out in Kalyanji 's case.
This proposition clearly envisages a formation of opinion by the Income Tax Officer on the basis of material already on record provided the formation of such opinion is consequent on "information" in the shape of some light thrown on aspects of facts or law which the Income Tax Officer had not earlier been conscious of.
[636G 637B] The difference between the situations envisaged in propositions (2) and (4) of Kalyanji Mavji is this, that proposition (4) refers to a case where the Income Tax Officer initiates reassessment proceedings in the light of "information" obtained by him by an investigation into material already on record or by research into the law applicable thereto which has brought out an angle or aspect that had been missed earlier.
Proposition (2) no doubt covers this situation also but it is so widely expressed as to include also cases in which the Income Tax Officer, having considered all the facts and law, arrives at a particular conclusion, but reinitiates proceedings because, on a reappraisal of the same material which had been considered earlier and in the light of the same legal aspects to which his attention had been drawn earlier, he comes to a conclusion that an item of income which he had earlier consciously left out from the earlier assessment should have been brought to tax.
[637F H] It is true that the return was filed and the assessment was completed on the same date.
Nevertheless, it is opposed to normal human 626 conduct than an officer would complete the assessment without looking at the material placed before him.
It is not as if the assessment record contained a large number of documents or the case raised complicated issues rendering it probable that the Income Tax Officer had missed these facts.
It is a case where there is only one contention raised before the Income Tax Officer and it is, we think, impossible to hold that the Income Tax Officer did not at all look at the return filed by the assessee or the statements accompanying it.
The more reasonable view to take would, in our opinion, be that the Income Tax Officer looked at the facts and accepted the assessee 's contention that the surplus was not taxable.
But, in doing so, he obviously missed to take note of the law laid down in Ramachari which there is nothing to show, had been brought to his notice.
when he subsequently became aware of the decision, he initiated proceedings under section 147(b).
The material which constituted information and on the basis of which the assessment was reopened was the decision in Ramachari.
this material was not considered at the time of the original assessment.
Though it was a decision of 1961 and the Income Tax Officer could have known of it had he been diligent, the obvious fact is that he was not aware of the existence of that decision then and, when he came to know about it, he rightly initiated proceedings for reassessment.
[639E 640B] The material on which the Income Tax Officer has taken action is a judicial decision.
This had been pronounced just a few months earlier to the original assessment and it is not difficult see that the Income Tax Officer must have missed it or else he could not have completed the assessment as he did.
Indeed it has not been suggested that he was aware of it and yet chose not to apply it.
It is therefore, much easier to see that the initiation of reassement proceedings here is based on definite material not considered at the time of the original assessment.
[640D E] (2) The stock in trade of a firm at the time of its disolution, has to be assessed at a fair value.
there can be no manner of doubt that, in taking accounts for purposes of dissolution, the firm and the partners, being commercial men, would value the assets only on a real basis and not at cost or at their other value appearing in the books.
The real rights of the partners cannot be mutually adjusted on any other basis.
This is what happened in Ramachari.
Indeed, this is exactly what the partners in this case have done and, having done so, it is untenable for them to contend that the valuation should be on some other basis.
Once this principle is applied and the stock in trade is valued at market price, the surplus, if any, has to get reflected as the profits of the firm 627 and has to be charged to tax.
The view taken by the High Court has held the field for about thirty years now and we see no reason to disagree even if a different view was possible.
[642B D, 647E,648A C] Popular Automobiles vs Commissioner of Income Tax, ; Sunil Siddharthbhai vs Commissioner of Income Tax, ; Pupular Workshops vs Commissioner of Income Tax ; Malabar Fisheries Co. vs Commissioner of Income Tax, ; Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society vs Commissioner of Income Tax, ; Kalyanji Mavji & Co. vs Commissioner of Income Tax, [1976] 102 I.T.R. 287; M/s A.L.A. Firm vs The Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras ; Commissioner of Income Tax vs Hind Construction Ltd., ; Commissioner of Income Tax vs Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd., ; Anandji Haridas & Co. (P) Ltd. vs S.P. Kushare, Sales Tax Officer, [1968] 21 S.T.C. 326; Commissioner of Income Tax vs Dewas Cine Corporation, ; Ramachari & Co. vs Commissioner of Income Tax, ; Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh vs Income Tax Officer, S.C.; Commissioner of Income Tax vs A Raman & Co., S.C.; Salem Provident Fund Society Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax, ; Commissioner of Income Tax vs Rathinasabapathy Mudaliar, ; Addanki Narayanappa vs Bhaskara Krishnappa, ; ; Commissioner of Income Tax vs Bankey Lal Vaidya ; Kikabhai Premchand vs Commissioner of Income Tax, [1953] 24 I.T.R. 506 (S.C.); Commissioner of Income tax vs K.A.R.K. Firm, ; Chainrup Sampathram vs Commissioner of Income Tax, ; Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s. Shoorji Vallabhadas & Co., , Commissioner of Income Tax vs Krishnaswamy Muldaliar, ; Commissioner of Income Tax vs Ahmedabad New Cotton Mills Co. Ltd., [1930] L.R. 57 I.A. 21; Muhammad Hussain Sahib vs Abdul Gaffor Sahib, reffered to.