1 S.C.R. though not to increase it. The document was altered while in the possession of the very person who, as the agent of Anirudhan, brought it to the Bank on both the occasions. Anirudhan must be deemed to have
held out Sankaran as his agent for this purpose and this creates an estoppel against Anirudhan, because the Bank believed that Sankaran had the authority. The offer thus remains in its amended form an offer
of Anirudhan to the Bank and the Bank by accepting it turned it into a contract of guarantee which was backed by the past consideration on which the offer of Anirudhan was originally based.
In my opinion, the appeal must fail. I would, therefore, dismiss it. BY COURT : In accordance with the opinion of the majority, the appeal is dismissed. There would be no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY v. JUBILEE MILLS LTD., BOMBAY (J. L. KAPUR, A. K. SARKAR AND M. HrnAYATULLAH, JJ.) Irwmie Tax-Individual members of companiu, aa"8&11lent
of-Public s11bstantially interested, meaning of-Group control· ling more thnn 15% voting power-Managing Agents forming such II group-lndia11 Income-tax Act, 1922(11of1922), •· 23A.
Section 23A of the Incom,.tax Act, 1922, empowered the Income-tax Officer to assess individual members of a company in respect of undistributed assc!Sable income of the company in certain circumstances. The proviso to this section made s. 23A iu.:pplicable to a company in which the public was substantially interested. The explanation to the proviso laid down that a company shall be deemed to be one in which the public was
M. S. Anirudh<t v. Tiu Tlwmco's Ba• Ltd. Hidayatullah, I Commissioner nf mt'ttcome-ttVe, Bombay v. … ubilee Mills Ltd. substantially interested if the shares of the company carrying not less than 25°/0 of the voting power had been allo(ted uncondi· tionally to or acquired by the public and were held beneficially by the public. It was found that though the directors of the company's qua directors did not hold more than 75% of the
shares, the shares held by such directors as were partners in the firm of the Managing Agents of the con1pany together with the shares held by other partners of the Managing Agents and tbe shares held by the members of the Managing Agency on behalf of minor children exceeded 75% of the voting power.
Hekl, that the company was not one in which the pub I ic wa. substantially interested and s. 23A was applicable to it. No person could be said to belong to the "public" unless he held the shares unconditionally and beneficially for himself. The v..•ords "unconditiOnally" and "beneficially" indicated that the voting power arising from the holding of thos.e shares should be free and not within the control of some sharehold.r and the holder should not be a nominee of.another. Directors, qua
directors, were not without the pale of the public as there was nothing that required them to act in unison. What ·had to be seen was whether there was any individual or a group hold- in15 the controlling interest which group acting in concert could direct the affairs of the compa~y at its will. The partners of the Managing Agency constituted a group holding more than
75% of the voting power in the company and they could not be counted as public as they must be taken to act in their own interest in unison". Commissioner of Income-tax v. H. Bjordal, [1955]
I. T. R. 25, referred to. Shri Changdeo Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Commi88ioner of Income- tax, Bombay, [1961] 41 I. T. R. 667 ahd Ritghuvanshi MilZ. Ltd. v. Commi,,sioner of Income-tax [1961] 41 I. T. R. 613, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE juR1SDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 599 of 1961. Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 13, 1958, of the Bombay High Court in I. T. R. No. 40 of 1957. R. Ga=pathy Iyer and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
A. V. Viswana.tha Sastri and J. N. Shmfj, for the respondent. 1962. September 17. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by l S.C.R. HrnAYATULLAH, J.—This is an appeal on a certi-
ficate of fitness granted by the High Court of Bombay against the judgment of the High Court dated March 13, 1958, on a reference made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Commissioner of Income
Tax, Bombay City I, is the appellant and tbc Jubilee Mills Ltd., Bombay, the respondent. The only question raised in this appeal is the application of s. 23A of the Income-tax Act to the assessee company.
The assessee company is a limited liability c01µ- pany with a paid-up capital of Rs. 15,25,000(-. lt5 paid up capital is m"ade up as under :— 1 Lakh Ordinary Shares of Rs. 10 each
Rs. I U,00,000 5,000 Cumulative Preference .Shares of Rs. 25 paid-up. Rs. 1,25.000 4,000 Second Preference Shares of Rs. 100 each fully paid-up. Rs. 4,00,000 The Second Preference Shares do not entitle the
holders to vote. Thus shares of the assessce company carrying votes are 1,05,000. This was the position on June 30, 1947. We are concerned with the assess- ment year 1948-49 corresponding to the previous year
ended on June 30, 1947. In that year, the company was assessed on a total income of Rs. 7,47,639/-. The Income Tax Officer calculated the tax at Rs. 3,27,091, and the balance available for
distribution was Rs.4,20,548. In that year, the company ought, ifs. 23A was applicable, to have distributed 60% of the above amount. The company, however, declared dividends which in the aggregate amounted to Rs. 24,750. The
Income Tax Officer, with the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner applied the provisions of s. 23 A of the Income Tax Act and held that the company was deemed to have declared divi-
dend of Rs. 3,97, 788/-. The assessee company was being managed by a firm called Mangaldas Mehta & Co. That firm Commissioner of Income~lax, Bombap v. Jubilee Milts Ltd. Hidayatulltih, I.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Jubilee Mills Ltd. Hidayatullah, J. consisted of 14 partners of whom seven were the direc· tors of the assessee company. The members of the Managing Agents who were also directors held between
them 35,469 ordinary shares and 880 First Preference Shares. The remaining seven members of the Mana- ging Agen.ts, who were not directors of the assessee comp.any, held respectively 41,659 and 370 shares of
the two categories. 75 shares were held by Girdhar- das & Co. Ltd. to which company admittedly s. 23 A was applicable. Some of the members of the Manag· ing Agency firm held on behalf 0f their minor children
or Qn behalf of their joint families 9,899 Ordinary Shares and 937 First Preference Shares. The following is a detailed break-up of the share holdings :- Cate,gory 'A'. Share m Shares held by Directors Holding the part- Holding
who are partners in the of nership of the firm of Managing Agents ordinary of firm Ist Pre- shares of Mg. ference Agents' Shares firm 1. Shri Homi Mehta 8/128 Nil 2. Sheth Mathuradas Man·
galdas Parekh 6,466 14/128 3. ,, Madanmohan Mangaldas 11,052 14/128 2'.73 4. ,, Madhusudan Chamanlal Parekh 3,616 7/128 5. ,, Mahendra Chamanlal Parekh 3,616 7/128 6. ,, Surendra Man-
galdas Parekh 7,053 14/128 7. ,, Indrajit Chamanlal Parekh 3,616 7/128 35,469 1 S.C.R. SUPREJ.VIE COURT REPORTS Cateyury 'B': Sliares held by the partners of the Managing Agen1s firm excluding the holding
of the Directors who arc also partners as shown above. 1. Shri Harshavadan Mangaldas 2. Mrs.Savitagavri Chamanlal Parekh 3. Shri Viren- a minor by draChaman- his mother Share in Holding the part· Holding
of Ordi· ncrship of the nary firm of Ist Pref. shares Mg. Shares. 11,05:! 3,7 50 Agcnls' firm 14/ 128 7/U8 Jal Parekh and guardian 4. Shri .Man- mohan Chamanlal Parekh Mrs.Savitaga-
vri Chaman- !al Parekh. -do· 5. Shri Kamalnayan Chamanlal Parekh -do- 6. Shri Nutan Chamanlal Parekh -do- 7. Shri Hussein Essa 6,328 7/128 4,462 7/128 4,962 7/128 4,962 7 /128 6,142
8/128 41,659 Nil Commissioner of income-tax, Bombay v. Jubilee Mills Ltd. Hidayatullahi J. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Jubilee llfills ltd. Hidapatullah, J, Category 'C':
Shares represented by the Directors Holding of ordinarv shares · 1. Sheth Madhusudan Chamanlal Parekh (No. 4 in 'A' above) as Karta of the Joint Family estate of Sheth Chamanlal Girdhardas Parekh
2. Sheth Mathuradas Mangaldas Parekh (No. 2 in 'A' above) as guardian and father of minor, Ben Purnima Mathuradas 3. -do- -do- Ben Veena 4. -do- -do- Ben Sunita 5. -do- -do- J agatkumar
Mathuradas 6. Sheth Surendra Mangaldas Parekh (No. 6in 'A' above) As guardian and father of minor Darshan · Surendra Parekh 7. -do- as guardian and father of minor Ben Babi Surendra Parekh
3,899 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Pref. Shares Holding of the Ist. 9,899 It appears that in the past the assessee company incurred heavy losses and it had to reconstruct its capital in 1930 because it had a debit balance of Rs.12, 75,QOO
in the Profit and Loss Account which had to be paid out of capital. This was done by reducing the face value of the Ordinary Shares from Rs. 100 to Rs. 10 each and of the Preference Shares from Rs. 100 to
Rs. 25 each, after obtaining the approval of the High l S.C.R. Court. It is the reconstituted capital which has been shown by us in an earlier part of this judgment. It also appears that Income Tax Officer granted to the
assessee company a rebate of one anna under proviso (a) to paragraph (B) of part (I) of the Second Schedule of the Finance Act, l!J48. This rebate was granted to those companies to which the provisions of s. 23 A
were not applicable. Subsequently, the Income Tax Officer, as stated already, applied s. 23 A 1.0 this company and it was contended that he was incompetent to do so as he must be deemed to have impliedly held
already that s. 23 A was not applicable. Section 23 A before its amendment in 1955, in so far as it is material read as follows:- "23A. Power to a . .sses8 individ·ual members of certain companies. –
( l) Where the Income-tax Officer is satisfied that in respect of any previous year the profits and gains distributed as divi- dends by any company up to the end of the sixth month after its accounts for that previous
year are laid before the company in general meeting are less than sixty per cent of the assessable income of the company of that previous year, as reduced by the amount of income-tax and super-tax payable by the com-
pany in respect thereof he shall, unless he is satisfied that having regard to losses incurred by the company in earlier years or to the smallness of the profit made, the payment of a dividend
or a larger dividend than that declared would be unreasonable, make with the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner an order in writing that the undistributed portion
of the assessable income of the company of that previous year as computed for income-tax pur- poses and reduced by the amount of income-tax and super-tax payable by the company in respect
thereof shall be deemed to have been distributed as dividends amongst the shareholders as at the date of the general meeting aforesaid, and Cmu111is.1io11cr nf lnrmne-tax, Bnmhay v.
Jubilrt 1ililh [,td. Hir/a~·atullah, J. Co111111is,ri1111rr nf !11come-tax, Bmnbay v. Jubilee 1\fills Ltd. thereupon the proportionate share thereof of each shareholder shall be included in the tota I
income of such shareholder for the purpose of assessing his total income: x x x x x x x x Provided forther that this sub-section shall not apply to any company in which the public
arc substantially interested or to a subsidiary company of such a company if the whole of the share capital of such subsidiary company is held by the parent company or by the nominees
thereof. Explanation. – For the purpose of this sub-section,- a company shall be deemed to be a company in which the public are substantially interested if shares of the company (not being shares
entitled to a fixed rate of dividend, whether with or without a forther right to panicipate in profits) carrying not less than twenty-five per cent of the voting power have been allotted
unconditionally to, or acquired unconditionally by, and are at the end of the previous year bene- ficially held by the public (not including a company to which the provisions of this sub-
scction apply), and if any such shares have in the course of such previous year been the sub- ject of dealings in any stock exchange in the taxable territories or are in fact freely transfe-
rable by the holders to other members of the public." We are really concerned with the application of the Explanation to the facts of this case. The Expla- nation, is so far as it is relevant to onr purpose, says
that a company shall be deemed to be a company in which the public are substantially interested if the 1 S.C.R. shares of the company carrying not less than 25 % of the voting power have been allotted unconditionally
to or acquired unconditionally by the public and are held beneficially by the public. The Income-tax Officer held that this was not a company in which the public were substantially
interested and that the grant of the rebate earlier by him did not estop him from applying s. 23A to this company. His order was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal on both the
points. The assessee company then applied for a reference and the Tribunal referred the following questions for decision by the High Court:– "(l) Whether, on the facts and in the circums-
tances of the case, the Income-tax Officer was competent to pass an order under Section 23A(l) of the Act after having allowed a rebate of one anna per rupee in the assessment under the proviso (a) to
paragraph (B) of Part I of the Second Schedule of the Finance Act, 1948? (i) If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee com-
pany is a company in which the public arc substantially interested for the purposes of Section 23A of the Act? (3) Whether the loss of Rs. 12, 75,000 incurred by the company prior to its reconstruction
in 1930, could be taken into consideration for purposes of the applicability of Section 23A (1) of the Act?" The High Court, by the judgment under appeal, answered the first two questions in the affirmative and
in view of the answer to ~estion. No. 2 it consider~d it unnecessary to answer the third. The Commis- sioner of Income Tax obtained a certificate of fitness and filed the present appeal.
Cnmminioner 1Jf lncame-tav:, B1Jmba v. Jubilee ,\fills /,(I. Hidayatuli<d1, J. Commi.1.1io.'1cr nf Jncomt'·lax, Bombay Juhifte Jfill~ Ltd. /lida;'atullah, J. The answer to the first question is in favour of
the Commissioner of Income Tax. The other side has not appealed and Mr. Vishwanath Sastri for the assessee company conceded before us that the High Court was right. The third question depends on the
answer to the first question but as it has not been answered by the High Court we do not consider it necessary to answer it here for the first time. We shall now address ourselves to the second question.
The Tribunal in dealing with the question whether the public could be said to hold 25% or more of the voting power in the assessee company took into consideration a decision of the Privy Council in
Commis8·ioner OJ Income Tax v. H. Bjordal,(') and held that though directors, qiui directors, do not cease to be members of the public, the holding of the group of 14 individuals who collectively formed
the Managing Agency firm oLMangaldas Mehta & Co. could not be counted as held by the members of the public in this case for purposes of the Explanation. The Tribunal was further of the opinion that this
group of persons had a 'juristic personality' and it should be taken into account as a group in determin- ing where the Controlling power vested according to the test laid down by the Privy Council in the said
case. The High Court reversed the decision of the Tribunal following its earlier decision reported in l!a.rflu11ran.,hi 1'fills Ltd. v. Co1111nissioncr 1:( 1nm111e- 'l'a.i;('). In that case the High Court had held that direc- tors, qnct. directors must be contrasted with the public
and if' the directors held more than 75% of the voting power then alone the company could be said to be unc in which the public were not substantially interes- ted. The High Court's view was that the Managing
Agents act under the direction of the directors and unless the directors were themselves controlling the voting power above the limit stated by the Explana- tion, the company must be regarded as one in which
(I) [1955] 28 J. T. R. 25. (2) [1953] 24 I. T. R. 338. 1 S.C.R. the public were substantially interested. Applying the same test to the present case, the High Court found that the directors between them held only the
shares which wb have shown in tabular form under category 'A'. 'Since the number of these shares was not up to the mark to attracts. 23A, the High Court answered the second question in favour of the assessee
company. The request of the Department that a supplemental statement of the case be asked from the Tribunal as to whether any person belonging to catagories 'B' and 'C' was so much within the control
of the directors as not to hold the shares unconditionallv or beneficially for himself was rejected by the High Court observing that this would give a second chance to the Department to lead further evidence. Following
the decision of the House of Lords in Tlwnucs Frdtori:ni (Lancashire) Ltd. v. Ink.nd Revenue C'ommi:ssioner. (') they refused to take action under s. 06 (41. The Hiµ;h Court took notice of the fact that the Privy Council in
.Bj01·dr1l's case (supi:a) had indicated a test to deter- mine what is meant by "public" which was different from that indicated by them in RrJghnwnshi Jlfill'., ca.se (su.pra.). They, however, held that after l!J50
the decisions of the Privy Council had only a persu- asive authority and the decision of the High Court was binding in the absence of a decision by this Court. They, therefore, applied
their own decision in Raghuva.nshi J1f_ill's · mse and decided this case accordingly. It may be pointed out .that the High Court did appreciate the point of view expressed by the Privy
Council in the above-mentioned case. They observed as follows:- "lt may be that our view is erroneous; and it may be-and very probably it is-that the view taken by the Privy Council is the right one.
But, as we have said, so long as the judgment of the Bombay High Court stands_. it was the duty both of the Department and of the Tribunal to give effect to that drcision." (I) [1942] A. C. 643,
Commissioner nf Incomt·tax, Bomba." v. J11bifre l\1ill.i Ltd. Jfida.i•atut!nh, J. Commiuioner of !11c0111-::-tax, Bumba_v v. J11bilu A/ills Ltd. llida1•afflliah,· J. Section 23A is not applicable to a company in
which the public are substantially interested. What is "substantial" interest of the public is stated in the Explanation. That interest represented in terms of the share-holding must not be less than 25% of the
total number of the shares, but no person can be said to belong to the "public" unless he holds the shares unconditionally and beneficially for himself. What is meant by "unconditionally" and "beneficially" was
explained by this Court in an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Bombay in the Ra.ghu.vrmsM ~Mills' case. The decision of this Court is reported in [1961) 41 I.T.R., 613.
This Court pointed out that by the words "unconditionally" and "beneficially" is indicated that the voting power arising from the holding of those shares should be free and not within the control of some other shareholder
and the registered holder should not be a nominee of another. It was pointed out again by this Court in 8hri: Chnngdeo Sugar Jfil/!3 Ltd. v. Commissw11'!.r of Incorne J'ax Bombny, (') that by "unconditional"
and "beneficial" holding is meant that the shares are held hv the holders for their own benefit onlv and without any control of another. This Court approved the decision of the Privy
Council in Bjordal' s case that directors, qua directors, are not without the pale of the public. This Court pointed out that what one has to find out is whether there is an individual who, or a group acting in
concert ·which, controls or control the affairs of the company to the exclusion of others by reason of his or their voting power. Such person or group of persons do not answer the description "public." There
is nothing inherent in the office of directors which- would lead one to think that the directors must act in unison. They are persons in whom the shareholders have reposed confidence and on whom they have
conferred powers which under the scheme of the Companies Act, have to be exercised for the benefit (1) [1961] 41 I. T. R. 667. l S.C.R. of the shareholders. The directors are, in a manner
of speaking, trustees of these powers. It is the duty of the directors to exercise these powers to the best of their independent judgment. Tl•ere is therefore, nothing in the nature of things or at all that requires
the directors to act in unison. This Court pointed out in the Jla,ghnmnshi J1fi'.ll8' mse (') that such a group may be composed of directors or their nominees or relations in different combinations or may be com-
posed of persons none of whom is a director provided such a group forms a block which holds the controlling interest in its hands. It would, therefore. follow from what we have stated that we have first to sec whether there is an
individual or a group holding the controlling interest which group acting in concert can direct the affairs of the company at its will. The controlling interest, of course, is effective only if the group owns iii o,;, nf the total shares.
Bu l the company will st ill he a company in which the public can be said tn be substanti- ally interested became to cease to be so the share- holding of the group mmt be more than 7 i"i •;,\,.
In the group, any person, be he a director or a non- director, a relative of a director, a promoter of the company, or a strang-cr, may be included hut only if belonging to a group or as holrling the shares as a
nominre of someone rise belonging to the group. W c have indicated again the true test whirh was not applied in the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the ltay/m,1·amshi JJills' msr(') and applying
which we reversed that decision. Applying the above test, we have to sec whether there is such a group in this company. J t is obvious from what we have said that category 'A' which consisted of the directors could not he regarded
as outside "public" mcrclv by reason that they were directors. But there is. however, an intimate connec- tion between catcgorv 'A' and category 'TI' in as much as both arc members of the Man;wini,; Agenn·
!I) [!%!] 11 !, T R. tM il) [1'153] ~{ LT, P,, 333, C1Jmmis1ionrr of lnro/!/e-inr:, Bomba Jubilu .\Jil/1 Lt1 /f/,/n rn.'11/!ah, J. r:omminiuner of lnromt-tax, Bombll)' v. Juhifte Alil!s Ltd.
Hida)•atul!ah. J. !)() firm. In other words, there is evidence of yet another group, name! y, the group of shart'holdcrs who consti- tute the Managing Agency firm. We agree with the High Court that Managing
Agents act under the control and direction of the directors. The Managing Agents are also appointed by the company. The control of the affairs of a company is ordinarily in the hand of the directors of
the company but there may be cases in which the Managing Agents, by reason of their superior holding of shares, may be able to appoint the directors and generally to control tht> views of the directors. Where
the l\fanaging Agents hold an interest which is small and is thus not capable of exercising an overriding power, other evidence mav be required to show that they, in conjunction with others, are running the affairs
of the company to the exclusion of the public. \Vherc, however, the Managing AgTnts admittedly hold 51 % or more of the shares, it is obvious that the controll- ing interest belongs to the Managing Agents.
When, therefore, the :tvianaging Agents, either by themselves or with those who act in concert with them, hold shares above the 75%, limit they can be regarded as constituting a group which cannot be counted as
"public". In such a case the holding of the Manag- ing Agents, if above 75°/o, may furnish proof that the company is one in which the public are not substan- tially interested. It was contended before us that
even among the ,Managing Agents some may take an independent view. Normally Managing Agencies are not formed bv parties except for the purpose of mutual gain and the commonness of the interest lends
a cohesion to the body which enables it to act in its own interest. When such a body holds shares carryinl!,' more than 75° ;, of the voting power the company itself is run mainly as the Managing Agents desire it
to be run. Such a l\fanagin,g Agency could easily choose its own directors and the directors would not be indep1'nncnt persons hut mere nominees of the 1 S.C.R. Managing Agents. In such a case the inference is
irresistible that we have a group, which as a group, can run the company at its will and which not only controls the voting at the meeting of the shareholders but, by selecting its own directors, gets the directors
to act according to its own desires. No member of such a Managing Agency firm can be regarded as belonging to "the public" and when this happens the company comes within the reach of s. 23A.
Applying the above test to the present case, it is clear that the Managing Agents, between them hold 77,128 out of 1,00,000 ordinary shares, well above the limit. Thev have in addition 1,250 First Preference
Shares out ~f 5,000 which also carry voting power. To this must be added 75 shares held by Girdhardas & Co. Ltd. to which s. 23A is admittedly applicable. This brings the total holding to 78,453.
75% of the total shares bearing votes is 78, 750. This shows that the holding of the Managing Agents is short by 298 shares for the application of the Explanation to s. 23A. But when we turn to category "C" we find that
6,000 shares were held by the members of the Managing Agency on behalf of minor children and the voting power arising from these shares was in their own hands as guardians. There is no doubt that
in the present case shares carrying more than 75% of the voting power are held by persons whq form a group in the sense indicated by this Court in Raghumnshi Mills case and by us here. The reason
is this : Shares carrying more than 7 5 % of the voting power are held by the partners of the managing agency or persons under its control. Now it seems to us that it is to the interest of the partners of this firm to exercise their voting power in one way, namely the
way that brings to them the largest profit out of the company. It is true that the managing agents are the serv3:nts of the company in a manner of speaking and no~ Its masters and also that the object of a firm of
managmg agents is to carry out certain administrative Comminioner of Income~!a.<, Bombay v. Jubilee Mills Ltd. Hida_yat11llah, J. Commissioner of ln•ome~tax, Bombay v. Jubiltt Mills Ltd.
Hidayatullah, J. duties concerning the company under the control of the directors of the company. That however is irrelevant and in any case is far from the truth in the present case.
Here the partners of the managing agency practically own the company. At the hearing a point was raised that it has to be proved as a fact that the persons constituting the group which owns shares carrying more than seventy-
five percent of the voting power, were acting in unison. The test is not whether they have actually acted in concert but whether the circumstances are such that human experience tells us that it can safely be taken
that they must be acting together. It is not necessary to state the kind of evidence that will prove such concerted actings. Each case must necessarily be de- cided on its own facts.
The exclusion of "public" in the manner indicated generally from more than 75% of the shares and the concentration of such a holding in a single person or a group acting in concert is what
attracts s. 23 (A). In our opinion, the High Court was not right in answering the second question in the affirmative. The appeal is allowed. The answer of the High Court is set aside and the question is answered in the negative.
The respondent shall pay the costs here and in the High Court. Appwl allnwed.