2001 (10) TMI 19 - HC - Income Tax

Surtax, Rectification Of Mistakes, Computation Of Capital - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the issue arising from the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) was highly debatable and it is clearly beyond the purview of section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964? - Tribunal has found as a fact as noticed by us above that whether the sum was set apart to meet a liability which was well known on the date of the balance-sheet or was not so known itself was not free from doubt and the Tribunal has noticed that even facts admitted had not been taken into consideration. This needed examining various facts drawing inferences from some basic findings. In that view of the matter, the decision of the Supreme Court as aforesaid it was apparent that there did not exist any such mistake, which could be said to be a mistake apparent on the face of the record and could not be corrected by invoking the power under section 13 of the Act. We do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal, rejecting the application under section 256(1). - The application under section 256(2) is, therefore, rejected

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 regarding the treatment of reserves for bad and doubtful debts.
2. Application of section 13 of the Act of 1964 for rectification of assessment order.
3. Determination of whether a mistake apparent on the face of the record exists for rectification under section 13.
4. Distinction between "provision" and "reserve" in commercial accountancy.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the Commissioner of Income-tax sought a reference to the Tribunal regarding the treatment of a reserve for bad and doubtful debts by a company liable to surtax under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The dispute arose from whether the amount set apart by the company constituted a provision or a reserve, impacting the computation of capital deployed for surtax liability.

2. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner invoked section 13 of the Act of 1964 to rectify the assessment order, considering the sum as a provision rather than a reserve. This decision was upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) but overturned by the Tribunal, emphasizing the debatable nature of whether the sum qualified as a reserve. The Tribunal's decision was based on the Karnataka High Court's ruling and the absence of known liabilities at the balance sheet date.

3. The Tribunal's ruling highlighted the distinction between a "provision" and a "reserve" in commercial accountancy, emphasizing that provisions are charges against profits for anticipated losses, while reserves are appropriations of profits for asset retention. The Supreme Court's decision in State Bank of Patiala v. CIT clarified this distinction, emphasizing that reserves are not meant to meet known liabilities, unlike provisions. The Tribunal's factual findings supported the classification of the sum as a reserve, qualifying for relief under relevant rules.

4. The Court reiterated the principle that a mistake apparent on the face of the record must be obvious and patent, not requiring extensive reasoning or reevaluation of evidence. Applying this principle, the Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable, as no clear mistake existed that could be rectified under section 13 of the Act. Therefore, the application under section 256(2) was rejected, with no costs awarded.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved and the court's reasoning in reaching its decision.