1978 (12) TMI 18 - HC - Income Tax

Computation Of Capital Mistake Apparent From Record Priority Industry Rectification Of Mistakes

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the portion of profits and gains attributable to the assessee company's priority industry, deducted under section 80E of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could be said to be not includible in its total income within the meaning of rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.
2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the omission to make a proportionate reduction of the capital base under rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act was a mistake apparent from the record and the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to rectify it under section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.
3. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum representing the increase in the share capital of the assessee-company as a result of capitalisation of part of its reserves was not liable to be included in its capital base under rule 3 of the Second Schedule to the Surtax Act.
4. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the inclusion of the aforementioned sum in the capital base in the original assessment was a mistake apparent from the record and the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to rectify it under section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Applicability of Rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Surtax Act

The Tribunal held that the portion of profits and gains attributable to the assessee company's priority industry, deducted under section 80E of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not includible in its total income within the meaning of rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The Tribunal considered the scheme of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and concluded that the language of rule 4 was clear and unambiguous, indicating that what was deducted under section 80E was part of the profits and gains of the assessee and not includible in its total income as computed under the Income-tax Act.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction to Rectify Mistake Apparent from the Record

The Tribunal justified the omission to make a proportionate reduction of the capital base under rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act as a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal found that the mistake in the original surtax assessment on this point was patent and glaring, thus granting the Income-tax Officer jurisdiction to rectify it under section 13 of the Surtax Act. However, the court answered question No. 2 in the negative and in favor of the assessee, indicating that the rectification was not justified.

Issue 3: Inclusion of Increased Share Capital in Capital Base

The Tribunal held that the sum representing the increase in the share capital of the assessee-company as a result of capitalisation of part of its reserves was not liable to be included in its capital base under rule 3 of the Second Schedule to the Surtax Act. The Tribunal noted that the issue of bonus shares from out of the general reserve did not increase the capital as a whole, as the increase in the paid-up share capital was counter-balanced by a corresponding decrease in the general reserve. Thus, rule 3 of the Second Schedule to the Surtax Act did not apply in such a case.

Issue 4: Rectification of Mistake in Inclusion of Share Capital

The Tribunal held that the inclusion of the aforementioned sum in the capital base in the original assessment was a mistake apparent from the record. The Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to rectify this mistake under section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, by excluding the sum from the capital base. The court answered question No. 4 in the affirmative and in favor of the revenue, supporting the rectification of the capital base on this count.

Conclusion:

- Question No. 2 was answered in the negative and in favor of the assessee.
- Question No. 1 was not answered as it was deemed academic.
- Question No. 4 was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the revenue.
- Question No. 3 was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the revenue.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no order as to costs.