1992 (4) TMI 74 - AT - Income Tax

A Firm, From Other Sources, Insurance Premia, Life Insurance, Provident Fund, S. 10, Share Income

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Section 80C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding deductions for investments in National Savings Certificates (NSCs) made from past savings.

Analysis:
The appeals involved a common question on deductions claimed under section 80C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for investments in NSCs made from past savings. The assessees derived share income from various sources, including M/s Rose Merry & Co. Rengali. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the deductions claimed by the assessees as he found that the investments in NSCs were made from past savings that had already been taxed. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed with the ITO, stating that the source of the investment need not be income chargeable to tax for the current year as long as it had suffered taxation in any year. The Revenue appealed against this decision.

The Departmental representative argued that the ITO's interpretation of section 80C was correct, emphasizing the distinction between 'income charged to tax' and 'income chargeable to tax.' The legislative intent behind section 80C was to incentivize long-term savings from current income, not past savings that had already been taxed. The assessees' Counsel supported the Deputy Commissioner's decision, stating that the credit balances in the assessees' capital accounts exceeded the NSC investments. They argued that the failure to pass relevant entries in the firm's books should not disqualify them from claiming the deduction under section 80C.

After considering the submissions and conflicting opinions of the tax authorities, the Tribunal agreed with the ITO's interpretation. The Tribunal analyzed the legislative history of section 80C, highlighting the amendments aimed at promoting long-term savings from current income to benefit the national economy. The Tribunal emphasized that the investments for section 80C deductions must be made from the assessees' income of the year under consideration. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the assessees' claims that they had sufficient funds in their accounts to make the NSC investments on the relevant date. The argument that they could have passed relevant entries was dismissed as hypothetical. Additionally, there was no evidence that the savings bank accounts contained both past and current incomes, leading to the conclusion that the assessees were not entitled to the deduction claimed. Consequently, the Tribunal vacated the Deputy Commissioner's order and restored that of the ITO, allowing the appeals in favor of the Revenue.