1975 (12) TMI 51 - HC - Income Tax

Capital Employed, Computation Of Capital, Income Tax Act, New Industrial Undertaking, Total Income

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of rule 19 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 regarding computation of capital employed in an industrial undertaking for tax rebate.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64 concerning an assessee-company engaged in the manufacture and sale of self-locking nuts. The key contention revolved around the computation of capital employed in the industrial undertaking for tax rebate under section 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as per rule 19 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The rule outlines the methodology for calculating the capital employed, including assets acquired by purchase, assets not entitled to depreciation, and debts due to the assessee (clause c). The Income-tax Officer initially interpreted the rule to include averaging the value of all current assets acquired during the year, leading to assessment orders based on this interpretation.

The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, resulting in conflicting decisions for the two assessment years. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the 1963-64 assessment year held that the proviso in rule 19 applied only to clause (d) and not to clause (c), directing the Income-tax Officer to compute the capital by considering the nominal amounts of debts due. Subsequently, the Tribunal consolidated the appeals and concluded that the proviso indeed governed only clause (d) of rule 19(1), instructing the Income-tax Officer to compute the capital employed by considering the nominal amounts of debts due to the assessee.

The High Court analyzed the arguments presented by both parties. Justice Vimadalal emphasized that debts due to the assessee, as assets, do not lend themselves to averaging due to their fluctuating nature throughout the year. The judge highlighted the significance of the term "nominal" in clause (c) of the rule, indicating that debts should be valued at the actual named amount, distinct from the averaging process applicable to other assets. The judge also pointed out the absence of the term "value" in clause (c) compared to the proviso, reinforcing that the proviso was not intended for debts due to the assessee. Additionally, the judge noted that assets capable of being "used" in the business, as per the rule, do not extend to debts due to the assessee. Consequently, Justice Vimadalal upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee's interpretation.

Justice S. K. Desai concurred with Justice Vimadalal's analysis, and the Court delivered the final judgment. The Court clarified that in computing the capital under rule 19 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the nominal amount of debts due to the assessee should be considered, not their average value. The Court also directed the Commissioner to bear the costs of the reference, concluding the legal proceedings.