For the purpose of computation of capital gains under the Income-tax Act, 1961, the period of holding of a capital asset is important. The manner of computation of long term capital gains and the rate at which it is taxed differs from that of short term capital gains, and it is the period of holding of the capital assets which determines whether the capital gains is long term or short term. For determination of the period of holding, the date of acquisition of a capital asset and the date of transfer thereof are relevant.
Explanation 1 to section 2(42A), vide its various clauses, provides for inclusion and exclusion of certain period, in determining the period for which any capital asset is held, under the specified circumstances. There is however, in the Explanation 1, no specific provision to determine the period of holding of the capital asset in a case where the asset is first held as stock in trade, and is subsequently converted into a capital asset.
Similarly, qua cost of acquisition, section 55(2)(b) permits substitution of the fair market value as on 1 April 1981 for the cost of acquisition, where the capital asset became the property of the assessee before 1st April, 1981. Where an asset is held as stock in trade as on 1st April, 1981 and subsequently converted into a capital asset before its transfer, is substitution of the fair market value as on 1st April, 1981 permissible? In cases where the asset in question is acquired on or after 01.04.1981, difficulties arise for determining the cost thereof. Should it be the cost on the date of acquiring the stock or should it be the market value prevailing on the date of conversion?
There have been differing views of the tribunal on the subject. While the Calcutta, Delhi and Chennai benches of the tribunal have taken the view that only the period of holding of an asset held as a capital asset has to be considered for the purposes of determination of the period of holding and that the asset has to have been held as a capital asset as on 1st April, 1981 in order to get the benefit of substitution of fair market value as on that date, the Pune bench of the tribunal has taken the view that the period of holding commences from the date of acquisition of the asset as stock in trade, and that even if the asset is held as stock in trade as on 1st April, 1981, the benefit of substitution of fair market value as on the date is available. Yet again, the Mumbai bench has held that the adoption of the suitable cost is at the option of the assessee.
B. K. A. V. Birla’s case
The issue first came up before the Calcutta bench of the tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. B K A V Birla (1990) 35 ITD 136.
In this case, the assessee was an HUF, which acquired certain shares of a company, Zenith Steel, in 1961, and held them as investments till 1972, when the shares were converted into stock in trade. While the shares were held as stock in trade, the assessee received further bonus shares on these shares. The shares were again converted into investments on 9th September 1982, and all the shares were sold in August 1984.
The assessee claimed that the capital gains on sale of the shares was long term capital gains, and claimed deductions u/ss. 80T and 54E. The assessing officer treated the shares as short term capital assets, since they were sold within 2 years of conversion into capital assets, and therefore denied the benefit of deductions u/ss. 80T and 54E. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that since the shares were held since 1961, they were long-term capital assets.
On behalf of the revenue, it was argued that the definition of “capital asset” in section 2(14) excluded any stock in trade, held for the purposes of business or profession. It was claimed that to qualify as a long-term capital asset, the asset must be held as a capital asset for a period of more than 36 months. In calculating that period, the period during which the asset was held as stock in trade could not be considered, since the asset was not held as a capital asset during that period.
On behalf of the assessee, while it was agreed that so long as the shares were held as stock in trade, they were not capital assets, it was argued that while it was necessary as per section 2(42A) that the asset should be held as capital asset at the time of sale, it was not necessary that it should be held as a capital asset for a period exceeding 36 months to qualify as a long-term capital asset. According to the assessee, the only thing necessary was that the assessee should hold the assets for a period exceeding 36 months. Therefore, according to the assessee, the period for which the assets were held as stock in trade was also to be taken into account for determining whether the assets sold were short term or long term capital assets.
The Tribunal was of the view that the definition of the term “short term capital asset” as per section 2(42A) made it clear that it was a capital asset, which be held for a period of less than 36 months, and not any asset. The use the words “capital asset”, in the definition, and the word “capital” in it could not be ignored. According to the tribunal, the scale of time for determining the period of holding was to be applied to a capital asset, and not to an ordinary asset. The Tribunal noted that the word ”asset” was not defined, and the term “short term capital asset” was defined only for computing income relating to capital gains. Capital gains arose on transfer of a capital asset, and therefore, according to the tribunal, period during which an asset was held as a stock was not relevant for the purposes of computation of capital gains. For the Tribunal, the clear scheme of the Act required moving backward in time from the date of transfer of the “capital asset” to the date when it was first held as a capital asset, to determine whether the gain or loss arising was long term or short term.
If the capital asset was held for less than 36 months, it was short term, otherwise it was long term. The Tribunal therefore did not see any justification for including the period for which the shares were held as stock in trade for determining whether those were held as long term capital assets or not. The Tribunal therefore held that the shares had been held for a period of less than 36 months as capital assets, and were therefore short term capital assets.
Recently, the Delhi bench of the tribunal in the case of Splendour Constructions, 122 TTJ 34 held, on similar lines, that the period of holding of a capital asset, converted from stock-in-trade, should be reckoned from the date when the asset was converted into a capital asset and not from the date of acquisition of the asset. The Chennai bench of the tribunal in the case of Lohia Metals (P) Ltd., 131 TTJ 472 held on similar lines that the period of holding would be reckoned from the date of conversion of stock-in-trade into a capital asset.
Kalyani Exports & Investments (P) Ltd .’s case
The issue again came up before the Pune bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kalyani Exports & Investments (P) Ltd/Jannhavi Investments (P) Ltd/Raigad Trading (P) Ltd vs. DCIT 78 ITD 95 (Pune)(TM).
In this case, the assessee acquired certain shares of Bharat Forge Ltd. in March 1977, in respect of which it received bonus shares in June 1981 and October 1989. The shares were initially held by it as stock in trade. On 1st July 1988, the shares were converted into capital assets at the rate of Rs.17 per share, which was the original purchase price in 1977. The assessee sold the shares in the previous year relevant to assessment year 1995- 96. It showed the gains as long term capital gains, taking the fair market value of the shares as at 1st April, 1981 in substitution of the cost of acquisition u/s 55(2)(b)(i).
The assessing officer took the view that the asset should have been a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14), both at the point of purchase and at the point of sale. Though the assessee had sold a capital asset, when it was purchased it was stock in trade, and since it was converted into a capital asset only in 1988, the assessing officer was of the view that the option of substituting the fair market value of the shares as on 1st April, 1981 was not available to the assessee. According to the assessing officer, since the shares had been converted into capital assets at the rate of Rs. 17 per share, the cost of acquisition would be Rs. 17 per share, with the date of acquisition being 1988. So far as the bonus shares were concerned, according to the assessing officer, the cost (and not the indexed cost) of the original shares was to be spread over both the original and the bonus shares. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the view taken by the assessing officer.
Before the tribunal, it was argued on behalf of the assessee that what was deductible from the consideration for computation of the capital gain was the cost of acquisition of the capital asset. It was submitted that an assessee could acquire an asset only once; it could not acquire an asset as a non-capital asset at one time, and later on acquire the same as a capital asset. As per section 55(2)(b), the option for adopting the fair market value as on 1st April, 1981 was available if the capital asset in question became the property of the assessee before 1st April, 1981. It was claimed that since the assessee held the shares as stock in trade before that date, they did constitute the property of the assessee before 1st April 1981.
It was pointed out that even under section 49, when the capital asset became the property of the assessee through any of the mode specified therein such as gift, will, inheritance, etc, the cost of acquisition was deemed to be the cost for which the previous owner acquired it. Even if the previous owner held it as stock in trade, it would amount to a capital asset in the case of the recipient, and the cost to the previous owner would have to be taken as the cost of acquisition. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Ranchhodbhai Bahijibhai Patel vs. CIT 81 ITR 446 and of the Bombay High Court in the case of Keshavji Karsondas vs. CIT 207 ITR 737. It was further argued that the benefit of indexation was to account for inflation over a period of years. That being so, there was no reason as to why the assessee should be denied that benefit from 1st April, 1981, because whether he held it as stock in trade or as a capital asset, the rise in price because of inflation was the same. It was therefore argued that indexation should be allowed from 1st April, 1981 onwards and not from July 1988.
As regards the bonus shares, on behalf of the assessee, it was argued that the cost of acquisition, being the fair market value as on 1st April, 1981, did not undergo any change on account of subsequent issue of bonus shares. Therefore, the cost of acquisition could not be spread over the original and the bonus shares.
On behalf of the revenue, it was argued that the term “for the first year in which the asset was held by the assessee” found in explanation (iii) to section 48, which defined index cost of acquisition, referred to asset, which meant capital asset. It was argued that the assessee itself had taken the cost of shares at the time of conversion at Rs. 17 in its books of accounts. In fact, the market value of shares on the date of conversion was about Rs. 50 per share, and if the conversion had been at market price, the difference of Rs. 33 on account of appreciation in the value of the shares would have been taxable as business income. However, since the assessee chose to convert the stock in trade into capital asset at the price of Rs. 17, this was the cost of acquisition to the assessee.
There was a conflict of views between the Accountant Member and the Judicial Member. While the Accountant Member agreed with the view taken by the assessing officer, the Judicial Member was of the view that the decisions cited by the assessee applied to the facts of the case before the tribunal, and that the assessee was entitled to substitute the fair market value of the shares as on 1st April, 1981 for the cost of acquisition, since the shares were acquired by the assessee (though as stock in trade) prior to 1st April, 1981.
On a reference to the Third Member, the Third Member was of the view that the issue was covered by the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Keshavji Karsondas (supra) in which case, it was held that an asset could not be acquired first as a non-capital asset at one point of time and again as a capital asset at a different point of time. In the said case, according to the Bombay High Court, there could be only one acquisition of an asset, and that was when the assessee acquired it for the first time, irrespective of its character at that point of time and therefore, what was relevant for the purposes of capital gains was the date of acquisition and not the date on which the asset became a capital asset. The Bombay High Court in that case, had followed the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Ranchhodbhai Bhaijibhai Patel (supra), where the Gujarat High Court had held that the only condition to be satisfied for attracting section 45 was that the property transferred must be a capital asset on the date of transfer, and it was not necessary that it should also have been a capital asset on the date of acquisition. According to the Bombay High Court, in the said case, the words “the capital asset” in section 48(ii) were identificatory and demonstrative of the asset, and intended only to refer to the property that was the subject of capital gains levy, and not indicative of the character of the property at the time of acquisition.
The Third Member therefore held in favour of the assessee, holding that the option of substituting the fair market value as on 1st April 1981 was available to the assessee, since the shares had been acquired in March 1977. The Third Member agreed with the Judicial Member that explanation (iii) to section 48 came into play only after the cost of acquisition has been ascertained. Once the cost of acquisition in 1977 was allowed to be substituted by the fair market value as on 1st April, 1981, it followed that the statutory cost had to be increased in the same proportion in which cost inflation index had increased up to the year in which the shares were sold.
The Third Member also agreed with the view of the Judicial Member that there was no double benefit to the assessee if it was permitted the option of adopting the fair market value of the shares as on 1st April, 1981. According to him, the difference between the market value and the conversion price could not have been brought to tax in any case, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT 24 ITR 506, to the effect that no man could make a profit out of himself. If the assessee was not liable to be taxed in respect of such amount according to the law of the land as declared by the Supreme Court, no benefit or concession could be said to have been extended to him. If he could not have been taxed at the point of conversion, tax authorities could not claim that he got another benefit when he was given the option to substitute the market value as on 1st April, 1981, amounting to a double benefit. The right to claim the fair market value as on 1st April 1981, was a statutory right which could be exercised when the prescribed conditions were fulfilled.
The Tribunal therefore held that the shares would be regarded as having been acquired on the date when they were purchased as stock in trade, and that the assessee therefore had the right to substitute the fair market value as on 1st April, 1981 for the cost of acquisition.
A similar, though slightly different, view was taken by the Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in another case, ACIT vs. Bright Star Investment (P) Ltd 120 TTJ 498, in the context of the cost of acquisition. In that case, the assessing officer sought to bifurcate the gains into 2 parts – business income till the date of conversion of shares from stock in trade to investment, by taking the fair market value of the shares as on the date of conversion, and capital gains from the date of conversion till the date of sale. The assessee claimed the difference between the sale price of the shares and the book value of shares on the date of conversion, with indexation from the date of conversion, as capital gains. The Tribunal took the view that where 2 formulae were possible, the formula favourable to the assessee should be accepted, and accepted the assessee’s claim that the entire income was capital gains, with indexation of cost from the date of conversion.
Observations
The important parameters in computing capital gains are the cost of acquisition and the date of acquisition besides the date of transfer and the value of consideration. They together decide the nature of capital gains; long term or short term vide section 2(42A), the benefit of indexation u/s 48, the benefit of exemption u/s 10 or 54,etc. and the benefit of concessional rate of tax u/s 112,etc.
Whether a capital gains on transfer of a capital asset is a short term gain or a long term gain is determined w.r.t its period of holding. Usually, this period is identified w.r.t the actual date of acquisition of an asset and the date of its transfer. This simple calculation gets twisted in cases where the asset under transfer is acquired in lieu of or on the strength of another asset. For example, liquidation, merger, demerger, bonus, rights, etc. These situations are taken care of by fictions introduced through various clauses of Explanation 1 to section 2(42A). Similar difficulties arising in the context of cost of acquisition are taken care of either by section 49 or 55 of the Act by providing for the substitution of the cost of acquisition in such cases.
The provisions of section 2(42A) and of section 55 or 49 do not however help in directly addressing the situation that arise in computation of capital gains on transfer of a capital asset that had been originally acquired as a stockin- trade but has later been converted in to a capital asset. All the above referred issues pose serious questions, in computation of capital gains of a converted capital asset.
It is logical to concede that an asset in whatever form acquired can have only one cost of acquisition and one date of acquisition. This date and cost cannot change on account of conversion or otherwise, unless otherwise provided for in the Act. No specific provisions are found in the Act to deem it otherwise to disturb this sound logic. This simple derivation however is disturbed due to the language of section 2(42A), which had in turn helped some of the benches of tribunal to hold that the period should be reckoned from the date of conversion and not the date of acquisition.
An asset cannot be acquired at two different points of time and that too for one cost alone. A change in its character, at any point of time, thereafter cannot change its date and cost of acquisition. Again, for the purposes of computation of capital gains it is this date and cost that are relevant, not the date of conversion. For attracting the charge of capital gains tax, what is essential is that the asset under transfer should have been a capital asset on the date of transfer; that is the only condition to be satisfied for attracting section 45 and whether the property transferred had been a capital asset on the date of acquisition or not is not material at all as has been held by the Gujarat high court in Ranchhodbhai Bhaijibhai Patel (supra)’s case.
It is true that a lot of confusion could have been avoided had the legislature, in section 2(42A), used the words “ ‘short term capital asset’ means an asset held by an assessee……” instead of “ ‘short term capital asset’ means a capital asset held by an assessee……” . While it could have avoided serious differences, in our considered opinion, the only way of reconciling the difference is to read the wordings in harmony with the overall scheme of taxation of capital gains which envisages one and only one date of acquisition and one cost of acquisition. Reading it differently will not only be unjust but will give absurd results in computation of gains. Any different interpretation might lead to situations wherein a part of the gains arising on conversion of stock would go untaxed. If the idea is to tax the whole of the surplus i.e the difference between the sale consideration and the cost, the only way of reading the provisions is to read them harmoniously in a manner that a meaning which is just, is given to them.
The view taken by the Pune bench of the tribunal in Kalyani Exports case (supra) is supported by the view taken by the Gujarat and Bombay High Courts, in cases of Ranchhodbhai Bhaijibhai Patel (supra) and Keshavji Karsondas (supra) as to when a capital asset can be held to have been acquired, when it was not a capital asset at the time of acquisition. As observed by the Third Member, those decisions cannot be distinguished on the grounds that they related to agricultural land, which was not a capital asset at the time of its acquisition, but became a capital asset subsequently, on account of a statutory amendment. The ratio of the said decisions apply even to the case of conversion of stock in trade into capital asset though it is on account of an act of volition on the part of the assessee. The issue is the same, that the asset was not a capital asset on the date of acquisition, but becomes a capital asset subsequently before its transfer.
The Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in Bright Star Investments case proceeded on the fact that the assessee itself did not claim indexation from the date of acquisition of the asset as stock in trade, but claimed it only from the date of conversion into capital asset. Therefore, the issue of claiming indexation from the earlier date of acquisition as stock in trade was not really the subject matter of the dispute before the tribunal.
Section 55(2)(b), uses both the terms “capital asset” and “property”. Section 55(2)(b) does not require that the capital asset should have been held as the capital asset of the assessee as at 1st April. 1981; it simply requires that the capital asset should have become the property of the assessee prior to that date. This conscious use of different words indicates that so long as the asset was acquired before that date, the benefit of substitution of fair market value for cost is available.
The decision of the Pune bench of the Tribunal in Kalyani Exports’ case has also subsequently been approved of by the Bombay High Court, reported as CIT vs. Jannhavi Investments (P) Ltd 304 ITR 276. In that case, the Bombay High Court reaffirmed its finding in Keshavji Karsondas’ case that cost of acquisition could only be the cost on the date of the actual acquisition, and that there was no acquisition of the shares when they were converted from stock in trade to capital assets and clarified that the amendment in section 48 for introducing the benefit of indexation did not in any way nullify or dilute the ratio laid down in Keshavji Karsondas’ case.
Therefore, clearly, the view taken by the Pune and Mumbai benches of the Tribunal and approved by the Bombay high court seems to be the correct view of the matter, and the date of conversion is irrelevant for the purpose of computing the period of holding, or substitution of the fair market value as on 1st April 1981 for the cost of acquisition.
