AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.
During the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee sold 500 shares in Madras Motor and General Insurance Company Ltd., of which, the
assessee had acquired 25 shares prior to 1-1-1954, and in respect of which the assessee was entitled to opt for treating the fair market value as on
1-1-1954, as the cost of acquisition u/s 55(2) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee exercised the option. The assessee had received bonus shares
in the subsequent years which were relatable in part to the shares subsequently purchased by the assessee, and in part relatable to the shares held
prior to 1-1-1954. It is not in dispute that 17 bonus shares received in subsequent years are relatable to the 25 shares held by the assessee prior to
1-1-1954.
While computing the capital gains, the Income Tax Officer did not assign any value to the bonus shares. He however, adopted the cost as given
by the assessee for the other shares which was the statutory cost for 25 shares and the cost of acquisition of the shares purchased in subsequent
years. That order having been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee appealed to the Tribunal which held that the bonus shares
were required to be assigned a value by spreading the cost of acquisition over the original shares and the bonus shares, but in respect of the shares
held prior to 1-1-1954, the cost of acquisition of shares could not be disturbed. The Tribunal also held that the actual cost of acquisition for the
shares held subsequent to 1-1-1954, should also be left undisturbed.
The Supreme Court in the case of Shekhawati General Traders Ltd. etc. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Company Circle-1, Jaipur, held that for the
purpose of determining the fair market value of the shares held prior to 1-1-11954, by an assessee, the subsequent issue of bonus shares in
respect of the shares so held is not to be taken into account. The court held that the fair market value of the shares held on 1-1-1954, cannot be
reduced by spreading that value over the shares held as on that date, and the shares subsequently received as bonus shares.
In the case of Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi, , it was held by the court that the bonus shares
cannot be regarded as having no value, or given their face value while determining the capital gain. It was held that the value of the bonus shares
has to be determined by spreading the cost of the old shares over the old shares and new shares. However, while so holding, the court
distinguished the case before it from that of Sekhawati General Traders (supra), as no question of considering the manner in which the statutory
cost of acquisition of shares held prior to 1-1-1954, arose for consideration in the case of Escorts Farms (supra). The principle laid down in the
case of Shekhawati General Traders (supra) was left undisturbed.
This court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax, MADRAS Vs. T.V.S. and SONS LTD., held that when all the shares, the
original as also the bonus shares, are sold, there is no need for calculating the value of the bonus shares for determining the cost of acquisition. That
was not a case where the assessee had held shares prior to 1-1-1954, in respect of which he had opted to have the statutory cost assigned in
those shares.
It is clear that having regard to the law laid down in the case of Shekhawati General Traders (supra), that the value for the shares held prior to
1-1-1954, cannot be disturbed, the assessee having opted to have the fair market value of that asset as on 1-1-1954, as the cost of acquisition.
The value of the bonus shares subsequently received which are relatable to those shares cannot be regarded as being without any value. Their
value has to be determined by spreading that statutory cost over the 17 shares. Thus, while the 25 shares acquired prior to 1-1-1954, are to be
assigned the statutory cost as the cost of acquisition, the bonus shares acquired are also to be given a value by spreading that cost over the number
of shares. Insofar as the shares acquired subsequent to 1-1-1954, are concerned, the shares purchased, as also the bonus shares relatable thereto
are to be valued by spreading the cost of acquisition of the shares purchased over the shares so purchased, as also the bonus shares relatable
thereto. The Tribunal was not right in leaving undisturbed the cost of acquisition of the shares purchased after 1-1-1954.
The assessee through his counsel has placed before us a working of the values as by applying the method set out in the preceding paragraph.
The difference in the amount of the capital gain worked out in that manner, and the capital gain as determined by the Income Tax Officer is only
Rs. 155. In place of the amount determined by the Income Tax Officer, the amount of capital gain for the purpose of taxation shall be the sum of
Rs. 66,301, and the tax liability of the assessee is to be calculated accordingly. We make this direction as the working placed before us has been
accepted as correct by the revenue.
