1984 (9) TMI 17 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether non-refundable deposits received by the assessee-society are liable to be deducted from the value of its assets for the purpose of deduction under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether furnishing of particulars is a condition precedent for the Department to grant the depreciation allowance.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the assessment year 1968-69, where the assessee, a cooperative society deriving income from sugar manufacturing, claimed relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) excluded an amount representing deposits received from members from the computation of capital employed. The assessee contended that these non-refundable deposits were to be converted into share capital and should not be treated as borrowed moneys or debts due by the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) accepted this argument, directing the ITO to redo the capital computation. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, considering the provisions of sub-rule (3) of r. 19A of the Rules, which dictate deductions from the aggregate amounts. The Tribunal concurred with the assessee's position that the deposits could not be considered as borrowed moneys or debts due by the assessee, leading to the proper directions given by the AAC.

2. The second issue raised was whether the furnishing of particulars was a condition precedent for the Department to grant the depreciation allowance. The Tribunal considered an argument raised by the Departmental representative, citing the Allahabad High Court decision in Ascharajlal Ram Parkash v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 477. However, the High Court found that this argument did not directly relate to the claim or computation of deduction under section 80J. As a result, the High Court declined to answer question No. 2, stating that it was unnecessary to consider the argument in connection with the claim for deduction under section 80J. The High Court answered question No. 1 in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee, and directed the Department to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.

This judgment clarifies the treatment of non-refundable deposits in the computation of capital employed for tax purposes under section 80J and underscores the importance of relevant arguments in tax appeals before the Tribunal.