SHUBHLAXMI MILLS LIMITED vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, GUJARAT

PDF · subscribers
CIVIL APPEAL No. 47/1975Supreme Court[1989] 2 S.C.R. 8628 March 1989Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: R.S. PATHAK, RANGANATH MISRA6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that to claim development rebate under Section 33(1), it is obligatory to make the debit entries in the profit and loss account and the credit entry in a reserve account in the relevant previous year when the machinery or plant was installed or first put to use. The development rebate cannot be allowed unless such a reserve account has been created in that previous year. The Explanation to Section 34(3)(a) clarifies that the deduction is not to be denied solely because the amount credited to the reserve account exceeded the profit of that previous year. The Court emphasized that the creation of a Reserve Fund in the relevant previous year is contemplated, irrespective of the profit and loss account results, and mere book entries suffice if made before the profit and loss account is finalized. The Court disagreed with the High Courts in Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vishnu Industrial Enterprises and CIT v. U.P. Hotel and Restaurants Ltd., and distinguished cases relied upon by the assessee, finding them inapplicable or decided under different provisions. The High Court's view that the assessee failed to comply with Section 34(3) was upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shubhlaxmi Mills Limited, claimed development rebate for assessment year 1962-63. The Income Tax Officer rejected the claim because the assessee had not created a reserve as required by Section 34(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assistant Commissioner upheld this order. The Appellate Tribunal initially favoured the assessee, but on a reference by the Revenue, the High Court ruled against the assessee, holding that the conditions of Section 34(3)(a) were not met. The assessee appealed this High Court decision, arguing that creating a reserve in the previous year was not mandatory. The dispute centers on the timing and necessity of creating a reserve fund for claiming development rebate.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of carry forward of development rebate? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 33 and Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing that the Income-tax Officer should determine the development rebate and such development rebate should be allowed to be carried forward and set off when profits are available and if, in that year, the assessee fulfils the necessary requirements for such allowance like creation of adequate reserve? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 33 and Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that it was not necessary to create a reserve in the previous year during which the machinery or plant was installed. They relied on cases like West Laikdihi Coal Co. Ltd. v. CIT and CIT v. Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd., and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajagopalan. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue contended that the assessee had failed to comply with the conditions of sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Act, specifically the requirement to create a reserve in the relevant previous year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 33(1),Section 34(3)(a),Section 34

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A .SHUBHLAXMI MILLS LIMITED v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, GUJARAT MARCH 28, 1989 B [R.S. PATHAK, CJ AND RANGANATH MISRA, J.] Income Tax Act, 1961-S. 33(1) read with S. 34(3)(a) and Exp/a- nation thereto-Creation of a reserve fund in the relevant previous year is a condition precedent for claiming deduction on account of 'develop- c ment rebate'. Sub-s. (1) of S. 33 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides that subject to the provisions of s. 34 thereof development rebate may be claimed as a deduction in respect of a new machinery or plant. Clause (a) of sub-s. (3) of s. 34 stipulates that the said deduction shall not be D allowed unless an amount equal to 75 per cent of the development rebate is debited to the profit and Joss account of the relevant previous year and credited to a reserve account; and the Explanation thereto provides that the deduction shall not be denied by reason only that the amount so credited to the reserve account exceeded the amount of the profit of such previous year. E The appellant-assessee which had a textile mill claimed a sum as development rebate for the assessment year 1962-63. The Income Tax Officer rejected the claim on the ground that the assessee had not created a reserve as contemplated by sub-s. (3) of s. 34 and his order, on appeal, was upheld by the Assistant Commissioner. In second appeal, F the claim by the assessee found favour with the Appellate Tribunal; but on a reference made by it at the instance of the Revenue, the High Court held that the assessee had failed to comply with the conditions of sub-s. (3) of s.

34.

The appellant contended that the view taken by the High Court was erroneous and that it was not necessary that a reserve should have been created in the previous year. G Dismissing the appeal, HELD: In order to claim the deduction on account of develop- ment rebate under sub-s. (1) of s. 33 it is obligatory that the debit entries in the profit and loss account and the credit entry in a reserve H account should be made in the relevant previous year in which the 86 * t' I ~ ),-- + /- 'co- ' ,A ~ SHUBHLAXMI MILLS v. C.I. T. 87 machinery or plant is installed or first put to use. The development rebate contemplated by snb-s. (I) of s. 33 cannot be allowed as a deduc- A tion unless a reserve account bas been created in the previous year in which the installation or first use occurs. Any doubt in so reading the provisions because of a want or insufficiency of profit in such previous year has been removed by the Explanation to clause (a) of sub-s. (3) of s. 34. [91D-E] What is contemplated is the creation of a Reserve Fund in the relevant previous year irrespective of the result of the profit and loss account disclosed by the books of the assessee. Mere book entries will suffice for creating such a Reserve Fund. The debit entries and the entries relating to the Reserve Fund have to be made before the profit B ·~ ·and loss account is finally drawn up. That is a condition for securing the · benefit of development rebate. [89E-F] c West Laikdihi Coal Co. Ltd., Calcutta v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal II,. [1973] 87 ITR 501; Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Central v. Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd., [1973] 89 ITR 304 and Indian Overs.eas Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, [1970] 77 ITR 512, distinguished. _.\.-· Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vishnu Industrial Enterprises, [1980] 122 ITR 919 and Commissioner of Income-tax v. U.P. Hotel and Restaurants Ltd., [1984] 145 ITR 598, overruled. Dodballapur Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income· tax, Karnataka-2 and Anr., [1980] 121ITR94 and Indian Oil Corpora- • tion Ltd. v. S. Rajagopalan, Income Tax Officer, Companies Circle ~ 11( 1) Bombay and Others, [1973] 92 ITR 241, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION: Civil Appeal No. 47 (NT) of 1975. ~< From the Judgment and Order dated 3.10.1974 of the Gujarat High Court in I.T. Reference No. 30 of 1973. Bishambar Lal for the Appellant. V.S. Desai, B. Rao and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondent. M.B. Lal forthe Intervener. (N.P.) • D E F G H

A B c D E F G H 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 2 S.C.R. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, C.J. This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Gujarat is directed against the judgment of the High Court on the following questions referred to it by the Appellate Tribunal:

"

1.

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the asses- see cannot be denied the benefit of carry forward of development rebate?

2.

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing that the Income-tax Officer should determine the development rebate and such development rebate should be allowed )r to be carried forward and set off when profits are avail- able and if, in that year, the assessee fulfils the neces- sary requirements for such allowance like creation of adequate reserve?" The assessee is a limited Company. It has a textile mill at Cambay in the State of Gujarat. For the assessment year 1962-63, the previous year being the calendar year 1961, the assessee claimed that a -+ sum df Rs.1,26,233 should be allowed as development rebate under s. 33 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim on the ground that the assessee had not created a reserve as contemplated by sub-s. (3) of s. 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. In second appeal the claim by the assessee found favour with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. At the instance j of the Revenue the questions set forth ea~lier were referred to the ~­ High Court for its opinion. The High Court has answered the ques- tions in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. It has held that the assessee had failed to comply with the conditions of sub-s. (3) of s. 34 of the Act. In this appeal by the assessee it is urged that the view taken by ,,.-{ the High Court is erroneous and that it is not necessary that a reserve should be created in the previous year during which the machinery or plant was installed. Sub-s. ( 1) of s. 33 provides that development rebate may be claimed as a deduction in respect of a new machinery or plant installed

SHUBHLAXMI MILLS v. C.I.T. [PATHAK. CJ.] 89 )- after 31 March, 1954 which is owned by the assessee and is wholly used A for the purposes of the business carried on by him, and that the al- lowance of the deduction is subject to the provisions of s.

34.

Cl. (a) of sub-s. (3) of s. 34 provides that the deduction referred to ins. 33 shall not be allowed unless an amount equal to 75 per cent of the develop- ment rebate to be actually allowed is debited to the profit and loss account of the relevant previous year and credited to a reserve account to B ~ be utilised by the assessee during a period of eight years next following for I the purposes of the business of the undertaking, other than for distribu- • tion by way of dividends or profits or for remittance outside India as profits or for the creation of any asset outside India. The Finance Act, 1966 added an Explanation to this clause. The Explanation declared that the deduction referred to in s. 33 could not be denied by reason only c that the amount debited to the profit and loss account of the relevant -;.... previous year and credited to the aforesaid reserve account exceeded the amount of the profit of such previous year (as arrived at without making the deposit aforesaid) in accordance with the profit and loss account. The Explanation was inserted with retrospective effect from the commencement of the Act. Before the Explanation was enacted a D difference of opinion had existed between the High Courts on the question whether the statute required the creation of a reserve in the previous year in which the new machinery or plant was installed, when -f the amount of the profit of that previous year was either nil or insufficient for the purposes of enabling the creation of such reserve. It is not necessary to refer to these cases, for it seems clear to us that the E Explanation, which applied to the assessment year under considera- tion before us, removes the doubt altogether. What is contemplated is the creation of a Reserve Fund in the relevant previous year irrespec- tive of the result of the profit and loss account disclosed by the books _.. of the assessee. Mere book entries will suffice for creating such a -~ Reserve Fund. The debit entries and the entries relating to the F Reserve Fund have to be made before the profit and loss account is finally drawn up. That is a condition for securing the benefit of development rebate and if that condition is not satisfied we fail to see how the deduction on account of development rebate can be claimed at all. ' ~~ G Learned counsel for the assessee relies on West Laikdihi Coal Co. Ltd., Calcutta v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal II, [1973) 87 !TR 501 and Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Central v. Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd., [1973) 89 !TR 304. Those were.cases decided under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and there was no Explanation such as we have before us. Re- H

A B c D E F G H 90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989) 2 S.C.R. ference was made to the decision of this Court in Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax Madras, [1970) 77 ITR 512. In that case, however, the question was whether the creation of a reserve in compliance with s. 17 of the Banking Companies Act con- stituted sufficient compliance with the requirements of proviso (b) to s. 10(2) (vib) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Reference has also been made to Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vishnu Industrial Enterprises, I 1980) 122 ITR 919. We do not find it possible to agree with the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in that case that the development reserve need not be created in the relevant pre- vious year during which the new machinery or plant is installed, and that a profit must have been earned during the previous year to permit the creation of a reserve fund. We think that the Explanation is clear, and that there can be no doubt that it envisages the creation of a Reserve Fund notwithstanding that there is no profit or insufficient ~ profit from which such reserve may be provided. To contemplate otherwise would be to negate the entire scheme incorporated in s. 33 read withs. 34 of the Act. For the same reason we are unable to affirm the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. U.P. Hotel and Restaurants Ltd., [1984] 145 ITR 598. Our attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the assessee to Dodbal/apur Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-2 and Anr., [1980] 121 ITR 94 where reference has been made to a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 14th October, 1965 and to a subsequent circular dated 30 January, 1976. We have carefully considered the matter and we do not think that the circulars affect the true position in law. ... / On behalf of the assessee reliance was placed on Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajagopalan, Income-tax Officer, Companies nrcle II ( 1) Bombay and others, [1973] 92 !TR 241 where the Bombay High Court has held that there was no obligation on the assessee to ~­ create a reserve in the year of installation if there was no taxable income in the relevant year. Some of the submissions addressed in that case may be set forth in detail. A powerful argument was addressed by learned counsel for the assessee and it was pointed out that the ex- pression "shall be allowed" in clause (a) of sub-s. (1) of s. 33 indicated that the development rebate is to be assessed and thereupon it becomes allowable, and that sub-s. (2) of s. 33 which provides for the allowance of ·development rebate mentions that the sum "to be allowed" by way of development rebate for the assessment year shall be only such amount 1s shall be sufficient to reduce the total assessable income to nil and the amount of development rebate to the extent to which .. SHUBHLAXMI MILLS v. C.l.T [PATHAK, CJ.] 91 it has not been allowed shall be carried forward to the following assess- A ment years for eight subsequent years. Reference was also made to the distinction between the expressions "to be allowed" and "actually allowed" used in the relevant provisions. It was also argued that the utilisation by the assessee of the development rebate reserve for the purposes of the business of the undertaking contemplated the exis- tence of an actual fund which could be utilised for the purposes of the B business, and that an illusory debit entry in the profit and loss account and an illusory credit entry in the development rebate reserve account were not contemplated. The High Court accepted the submission and concluded that it was not mandatory that the necessary debit and credit entries must be made in the assessment year following the year of installation in which the development rebate is determined under s. c

33.

Having considered the matter at some length in the present case, it seems to us clear that in order to claim the deduction on account of development rebate under sub-s. (1) of s. 33 it is obl:gatory that the debit entries in the profit and loss account and the credit entry in a reserve account should be made in the relevant previous year in which the machinery or plant is installed or first put to use. The development D rebate contemplated by sub-s. (1) of s. 33 cannot be allowed as a deduction unless a reserve account has been created in the previous year in which the installation or first use occurs. Any doubt in so reading the provisions because of a want or insufficiency of profit in such previous year has been removed by the Explanation to clause (a) E of sub-s. (3) of s.

34.

The significance of the words "actually allowed" in clause (a) of sub-s. (3) of s. 34 has been considered by the High Court in the judgment under appeal, and we are in entire agreement with the view taken by the High Court in that regard. A number of other cases have also been placed before us by learned counsel for the assessee, but as they deal with the point on the basis of considerations substantially the same as have been referred to in the cases mentioned earlier, we think it unnecessary to deal with them specifically. Upon the aforesaid considerations we hold that the High Court is right in answering the questions in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the result, the appeal is dismissed but there is no order as to costs. H.L.C. Appeal dismissed. F G H

More judgments on Section 34

All 288 judgments and leading authorities on Section 34 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →