1978 (7) TMI 50 - HC - Income Tax

Capital Employed, Computation Of Capital, Income Tax Act, Income Tax Concession, Income Tax Rules, Industrial Undertaking

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the moiety of the book profits were includible in the capital employed in the industrial undertaking as per rule 19(5) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Inclusion of Moiety of Book Profits in Capital Employed

The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of rule 19(5) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and whether it mandates the inclusion of half the book profits in the capital employed for the purpose of tax relief under section 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Facts and Lower Court Decisions:
- The assessee, a private limited company engaged in manufacturing radiators and fuel engines, claimed relief under section 84 for the assessment year 1964-65.
- The Income Tax Officer (ITO) computed the capital employed at Rs. 27,25,755, granting a relief of Rs. 1,63,545.
- The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC), arguing that the ITO failed to include half the book profits in the capital employed as per rule 19(5).
- The AAC rejected this argument, stating that the value of assets and liabilities had been correctly computed, including any additions during the year.
- The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, stating that rule 19(5) pertains to the average amount of capital employed and not the computation of capital employed under rule 19(1), (2), (3), and (4).

Arguments and Legal Provisions:
- Section 84 provided that income-tax shall be payable on profits not exceeding six percent per annum on the capital employed, computed in the prescribed manner.
- Rule 19(5) states that for ascertaining the average amount of capital employed, profits or losses shall be deemed to accrue evenly throughout the period and result in a corresponding increase or decrease in the capital employed.

Precedents and Judicial Interpretation:
- The assessee relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Modella Woollens Ltd. v. CIT and the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd., which supported the inclusion of half the book profits in the capital employed.
- The Tribunal's view was that since the capital employed had been rightly computed under sub-rules (1), (2), and (4) of rule 19, sub-rule (5) would not apply.

Court's Analysis and Judgment:
- The court examined the legislative intent behind rule 19, emphasizing that the average capital employed throughout the year should form the basis for tax concessions.
- The court noted that the legislative intent was to extend the tax holiday concession effectively by considering the average capital employed, which includes the fiction of evenly accrued profits as per rule 19(5).
- The court rejected the Tribunal's narrow interpretation, holding that sub-rule (5) must be applied to include half the profits in the capital employed.
- The court referenced the decision in Devkaran Nanjee Banking Co. Ltd. v. CEPT, which supported the application of such fictions unless contrary evidence is presented.

Conclusion:
- The court concluded that the assessee's contention was correct, and half the profits should be added to the capital employed as per rule 19(5).
- The question referred to the court was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee.
- The Commissioner was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.

The judgment underscores the importance of interpreting tax provisions in a manner that aligns with legislative intent and provides a fair basis for tax reliefs, ensuring that the average capital employed, including deemed profits, is considered for such computations.