In a judgment[1] delivered on 10 April 2023, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court opined on the residency principle of companies under Section 6(3)(ii) of IT Act, 1961. While there were a few other issues involved in the case, in this post I will focus on Supreme Court’s treatment of the residency principle of companies and how it missed an opportunity to advance the jurisprudence on this issue. Instead, it merely reproduced the ratio of previous judgments without adding any substantive value.
Before proceeding, it is important to state that Section 6(3)(ii), IT Act, 1961 was amended in 2017. Pre-amendment, Section 6(3)(ii) stated that a company is said to be resident in India if the control and management of its affairs is situated wholly in India. Post-2017, Section 6(3)(ii) states that a company is said to be resident in India in any previous year if its place of effective management, in that year, is in India. The pre-amendment clause was applicable in the impugned case. The State though argued that to cull the meaning of pre-2017 clause it is important to consider the post-2017 clause, but this argument wasn’t expressly endorsed by the Supreme Court. (para 4.5)
Facts and Issues
Assessees in the impugned case were companies registered in Sikkim under the Registration of Companies (Sikkim) Act, 1961. Their business was to act as commercial agents for sale of cardamom and other agricultural products. The case of assessees was that they were residents of Sikkim and conducted their business in Sikkim and were thus governed by Sikkim State Income Tax Manual, 1948 and not IT Act, 1961. The reason the two income tax statutes were in question was because of historical reasons. Sikkim became part of India in April 1975, but all Indian laws were not immediately made applicable to Sikkim. Thus, residents of Sikkim continued to be governed by the Sikkim State Income Tax Manual, 1948. This was until Finance Act, 1989 proposed to make IT Act, 1961 applicable to Sikkim commencing from 1 April 1990. Thus, for the period prior to 1 April 1990, the assessees were foreign companies under IT Act, 1961 and could be considered as Indian residents only if control and management of their affairs was situated wholly in India. The State’s entire case was that the companies satisfied the latter criteria under Section 6(3)(ii), IT Act, 1961.
The State contended that the assessees were not residents of Sikkim based on the documents obtained from their Delhi-based accountants in a search operation. The accountants were found in possession of book of accounts, signed blank cheques, cheque books, letter heads, rubber seals, and other income documents of the assessees. The State further alleged that the accountants were appointing Directors of the companies and thus the control and management of the assessees was completely from Delhi.
The issue before the Supreme Court – and one that I focus on in this post – was: should the assessees be considered as residents of Sikkim due to reason of their incorporation in Sikkim or should they be considered as residents of India since they were (allegedly) completely managed and controlled from Delhi?
Summary of Jurisprudence
The Supreme Court dutifully cited the precedents that have elaborated on the test to determine the residence of a company not incorporated in India or to determine the control and management of HUF. The leading case on the issue is that of VVRNM Subbaya Chettiar[2], where in determining the residence of HUF under the Income Tax Act, 1922 the Supreme Court opined that ‘control and management’ signifies that the controlling and directive power or the ‘head and brain’ is functioning at a particular place with a certain degree of permanence. And since control and management of a company remains in the hand of a person or group of persons the question to be asked is wherefrom such person or group of persons control the company. Mere activity of a company at a particular place did not create its residence at that place. This test, in short referred to as the ‘substance over form’ test has been endorsed in subsequent decisions as well. For example, in Erin Estate[3] case the Supreme Court observed that the test was a mixed question of law and fact and clarified that what was necessary to show was from where the de facto control and management was exercised in the management of the firm and not the place from where the theoretical or de jure control was exercised. Similarly, in Narottam and Pereira Ltd[4] the Bombay High Court observed that the authority which controls and manages the employees and servants is the central authority, and the place from where such central authority functions is the residence of the company.
Expressing its agreement with the above line of jurisprudence, the Supreme Court stated that in the impugned case the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rightly concluded that the control and management of the assessees was with their accountants in Delhi and thus residence was in India. And that the conclusion is aligned with the findings of fact and material on record.
No Substantial Addition to the Jurisprudence
Given the set of facts detailed in the judgment, the Supreme Court’s decision seems justifiable. However, it also feels like a missed opportunity as the Supreme Court never really went beyond what was stated in the precedents. The facts offered an opportunity to examine – in some depth – how and if certain situations prove or lend support to the assertion that an assessee is controlled from a place other than its place of incorporation. Was the fact of an accountant possessing all relevant materials and documents of a company sufficient for an irrefutable conclusion that the accountant controlled the company? Or was the additional fact of an accountant appointing and controlling the Directors of a company an equal or more decisive factor? Further, inability to prove that assessees received all their payments in Sikkim and that their rates of commission were astronomical/unrealistic were relied on by the Supreme Court to arrive at its conclusion. But we are left unaware as to which fact was decisive or was it the combination of facts that tilted the case against the assessees.
One crucial aspect that the Supreme Court did not address clearly was the burden of proof in such cases. It is important to note that the two cases that the Supreme Court cited approvingly, i.e., VVRANM Subbaya Chettiar and Erin Estate cases made their observations in the context of Section 4-A(b), IT Act, 1992 (the predecessor of Section 6(2), IT Act, 1961) where the burden of proof is on assessee to show that the HUF is not a resident of India. And in Erin Estate case it was clearly stated that the onus to rebut the initial presumption is on the assessee. (para 6) While under Section 6(3)(ii), IT Act, 1961, the applicable provision in the impugned case, the initial burden is on the State to show that a company incorporated outside India is wholly managed from India.
In the impugned case, the petitioners argued that the State had not discharged its onus that the control and management of the company was wholly situated in India. (para 3.14) The Delhi High Court’s judgment which was under appeal had mentioned that once all the materials and documents of the company were discovered in possession of the accountants, the burden was on the assessee to prove that the residence of company was not in India. (para 6.3) Since the Supreme Court did not find any error in the Delhi High Court’s findings on this issue, it stands to reason that the High Court’s view was upheld. Is discovery of important documents of a company from a place other than the place of incorporation/registered office sufficient to shift the burden of proof to assessees? We do not have clear answers.
The result is that the Supreme Court’s judgment apart from reiterating the substance over form test, added no significant jurisprudential value to the residence test under Section 6(3)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961.
[1] Mansarovar Commercial Pvt Ltd v Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 291.
[2] V.V.R.N.M. Subbayya v CIT, Madras AIR 1951 SC 101.
[3] Erin Estate v CIT AIR 1958 SC 779.
[4] Narottam and Pereira Ltd v CIT, Bombay City 1953 23 ITR 454 Bom.