Supreme Court of India
COMMISSIONER-OF INCOME-TAX, ANDHRA PRADESHversusT. N. ARAVINDA REDDY
- Citation
- 1979 INSC 198
- Decided
- 5 October 1979
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- V R KRISHNA IYER
Holding
Release deeds by co‑owners transferring their shares for consideration amount to a purchase under Section 54(1), entitling the respondent to exemption from capital gains tax.
Summary
The respondent, T.N. Aravinda Reddy, sold his own house and, to avoid capital gains tax, acquired the family house jointly owned with his three brothers by executing three release deeds, each for a consideration of Rs. 30,000. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether such release deeds amounted to a "purchase" of the property under Section 54(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, thereby qualifying the respondent for exemption from tax. The Court held that each release deed transferred the releaser's share for consideration, which in plain language is a purchase, and that the ordinary meaning of "purchase" should not be divorced from its legal interpretation. Relying on the principle that purchase means acquisition for money or its equivalent, the Court affirmed the High Court's view that the transaction fell within Section 54(1). Consequently, the petition challenging the exemption was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether release deeds executed by co‑owners in favour of one co‑owner constitute a purchase of the property within the meaning of Section 54(1) of the Income‑Tax Act, 1961.
Legislation cited
- Income Tax Act, 1961s. 54(1)
Subjects
Income TaxSection 54Capital GainsPurchaseRelease DeedJoint OwnershipTax ExemptionCoparcenary
Judgment
872 '\.
A COMMISSIONER-OF INCOME-TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH
( v.
T. N. ARAVINDA REDDY
. October 5, 1979 /
B [V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND D. A. DESAI, JJ.]
' ' t'l
Income-tax .A:ct-1961 Section 54(1)~cope of-Words & Phrase~-Purclzase .) ... .
-Meaning of. ·' 1
~
1\'
The te!pondent sold his house at a price sufficient to attract capital gains,. ••
but he~ pre-empted the demand of tax by acquiring the common house from
;
c hiS brothers for a consideration of b. 30,000/- each through ~eparate release
t'~~s. On behalf of the Petitioner, it was contended that release deeds by
sl' ··-B in favour of one of them amounts to purchase within the meaning of ,
\>
1
of the Act. The High Court having held it is, the Revenue came
1 of Special Leave•
.:.Jissing the Petition.
:.0 : Each release i~ a transfer of the releaser's share for consideration
releasee. ·. In plain English, the transferee purchases the shue of each
brothers· for a price. Had thls b'~en taken from non-fraternal owners
~s or from one stranger owner, plain spoken people would have called
··chase. The reason i9 ~upported by decision in Hobshaw Brothers Ltd.
r, [1956(3) AER 833 and 835] that purchase primarily means acquisi~
money paid, not adjusted. .There is no reason to divorce the ordinary
of. the word 'purc~ase'- as buying for a price or equivalent of price
1ent in kind or adjustment towards an old debt or for oth'er monetary
1tion from the legal meaning of that word in s. 54(1) of the Act.
)]
rL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petiticm. (Civil)
57 of 1979. ~
n the Judgment und Order dated 1-2-1978 of the Andlira Pra-,
gh Court in Case Referred No. 114 of 1976.
J. Sorabji, Solicitor General and Miss A. Subhashini for the
r.
Desai, K. J. John and A. K. Verma for the Respondent. i...
Order of the Court was delivered by
INA IYER, J-We regard the single point, persuasively pre-
. r the learned Solicitor. General on behalf of the petitioner
nmissioner of Income Tax,· Andhra Pradesh), as deserving
cin~ order, although in dissent; since the question may arise
· needs to be silenced. ·
..
•.
;
"!
.
C. I. T. v. T. N. A. REDDY (Krishna [yer, 1.) . 873
Briefly, the facts. Four brothers, members of a coparcenary,
partitioned their family properties, leaving' in common a large house
in the occupation of their· moth~r. The eldest, who is respondent
before us, sold his own house at a price sufficient to attract handsome
capital gains tax, but he pre--empted the demand for tax by acquiring
the common house from his three brothers who executed three release
~/deeds for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/- each, adjusted towards the n.
extra share (/esh#abhaga) agreed to be given to the eldest by the
next three. It is common ground that if these release deeds did
amount to purchase of the house, s. 54(1) of the Income Tax A~t,-
~.. J 961~ would save the respondent from exigibility to tax~ So the short
question, neatly identified. by the learned Solicitor General is whether
rekase deeds by sharers in favour of one of them whereby the joint c-
oWnership of all became separate ownership of one amount to pur-
chase of house property within the m~aning of s. 54(1)' of the Act.
The High Court has-held it is and we concur. Undoubtedly, each
release, in these circumstances, is a transfer of the releaser's share
for consideration to the release. In plain English, the transferee pur-.
D··
chases the share of each of ·his brothers. It is for a price of
Rs. 30,000/- each. Had this been taken from non-fraternal owners of
shares or"from one stranger-owner, plain-spoken people would have
· called it a purchase. be
\Vhy; ~hen,. shoul& legalist allowed to play
this linguistic distortion. The reason, supposedly supported by an .
English decision, is that purchase primarily means · ·acquisition for
money paid, not adjuste:(J. Upjohn,. J. in Hobshaw Brvthers Ltd. v.
MayerC) has circumspectly said :
There are no doubt. to be found authorities' and statutes
which have extended that meaning. In Mr. T. Cyprian
Williams book, the. Contract of Sale of Land, at p. 3 he says:
"'sale', in the strkt and primary sen~e of th~ wcrd, F
'means' an agreement for the conveyance o( property for a
Brice in money; hut the word 'sale' may by used in law in a
wider sense and'so applied to the conveyance of land for a
price consisting wholly or partly of money's worth other: than
the conveyance of some other land."
G-.
Apparently he considered that a sale for something other
than money can in
a wider S{!nse be properly described as a
sale. ·
\Ve agree. ·The signification of a word of. plural semantic shades
may, in a given text, depend on the prenure ofthe context or other
indicia. ··Absent 'su'ch compelling mutation of sense, the speech of the H'
· lay is also the language of the law. I -
. )
(I) [1956] 3 A. E. R. 833 at 835. ---·
r .,
I
r
/
... .
874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R.
r
A ·We find no reason to divorce the ordinary meaning of. the word
'purchase' as buying for a price or equivalent of price by payment
in kind or~ adjustment towards an old debt or for other monetar.y
consideration from the legal meaning of that word in Sec. 54 ( 1) •
If you sell your house and _ make a. profit, pay Caesar what is due to
him. But if you buy or build another subject to the conditions· of
B Sec. 54(1) you -are exempt. The purpose is plain; the symmetry. iS ..
simple, the language is plain. \Vhy. mutilate the meaning by lexical
legalism. \Ve see no stress in the section on 'cash and carey', ·.The
point· pressed must, therefore, be negatived- ..._yve have declined to
hear Sri S. T. Desai's artillery fire although he was armed cap a pie.
. with 1\fiwkshara lcre and law. A point of suffocating . schplarsrup
C sometimes· anives in court when one nostaligic~lly remembers the ·
escapist verse : .
"\\<1lere ignorance is bliss,
Tts folly to be wise.,
D ·Amen!
A passing reference to avoidance and evasion of tax was made at
the bar, a dubious refinement of a _dated . legal culture· sanctified,
though, by judicial dicta. The c;ourt. is not the mint of virtue ·and {:
one day in our Welfare State· geared to Se<;ial Justice, this clever con- '
. E · _cept of 'avoidance' against 'evasion' may have to be exposed. Enough i
unto the day is the evil thereof. · ~
N.K.A. Petition dismissed.
\ \\
..........
,•
1-
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Income Tax"Sign in to search