9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (5) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earlier ; . . . He shall be allowed a deduction of a sum prescribed in the section. We are concerned only with the meaning and interpretation of clause (a) of section 32AB which has been substantially reproduced above. The following dates are relevant : (1) Date of introduction of Finance Bill, 1986 [15828-2-1986ITR 1 (Statute)] (2) Date on which the previous year of the assessee30-4-1986relevant to the Asst. Year 1987-88 ended. (3) Date of assent of the President to the Finance Bill, 198613-5-1986 (4) Date of framing deposit scheme under section 32AB15-7-1986(161 ITR 101 Statutes). (5) Date on which 6 months from the end of the previous31-10-1986year relevant to the Asst. Year 1987-88 expired. (6) Date of coming into force of the Finance Act, 19861-4-1987 (7) Date on which deposit was made with IDBI.25-6-1987 (8) Last date for filing Income-tax return.30-6-1987 (9) Actual date of filing return.30-6-1987. The assessee claimed deduction on account of investment deposit allowance amounting to Rs. 3,86,602 on the ground that it had paid Rs. 3,62,000 with the IDBI and had utilised Rs. 24,971 for purchase of new machinery (20 per cent of the eligible profit had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ench 'D' in ITO v. K.C.A. Ltd. [1987] 22 ITD 554 which referred to the grant of deduction under sec. 35CC(1). That provision requires that the statement of expenditure in prescribed form duly signed and verified and setting forth prescribed particulars was to be filed along with the return under section 139(1). The Tribunal had held that the words 'along with the return' meant that the return and the statement of expenditure should be duly filed and that both these documents should be before the assessing authority at the time when he was applying his mind to the assessments of the particular assessee. Next, he referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Filmistan Ltd. [1958] 33 ITR 334 wherein section 30(1) and the first proviso to section 30(1) had been considered. It was held that if tax was paid after the presentation of appeal but before the hearing of an appeal, the right of appeal was not taken away but only the remedy was barred until the tax was paid, since the payment of tax was a condition precedent not to the presentation of the appeal but to the hearing and disposal of the appeal. Shri Ganesan referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proposition that no statute should be interpreted in such a manner as to render any provision completely meaningless or redundant. 5. We have considered the rival submissions as also the decisions referred to above. The expression in section 32AB(1)(a) which is under consideration before us is 'deposited any amount. . . . before the expiry of six months from the end of the previous year or before furnishing the return of his income, whichever is earlier'. The expression 'previous year' has not been redefined in this section and therefore, it has to have the same meaning as given in section 2(34) read with section 3. The assessment order shows that the accounting period of the assessee ended on30-4-1986and therefore, the period of 6 months from the end of the previous year ended on31-10-1986. It is not the case of the assessee that it went before the assessing officer under section 3(4) to have the meaning of the expression 'previous year' varied. Therefore, the argument sought to be put forward on behalf of the assessee that the expression 'previous year' used in section 32AB(1)(a) should be interpreted to mean the period of 12 months ending with 31-3-1987 cannot be countenanced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eting a fiscal statute the Court cannot proceed to make up deficiencies, if there be any. It has to interpret the statute as it stands. No doubt as held by the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. the provisions of section 14(3) of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 were held to require to be liberally construed. But that decision proceeded on its own facts on the basis of the wordings of section 14(3) which provides that tax shall not be payable by a co-operative society in certain situations. On facts that decision cannot be taken advantage of by the assessee. The contention put forward on behalf of the assessee, cannot be upheld without doing violence to the language of section 32AB(1)(a) and which does not admit of any doubt or ambiguity. The principle of interpretation in favour of the assessee applies only in case of doubt. It does not apply where the provision is clear. Hardship caused in a particular case is not relevant. Literal construction has to be applied regardless of the results, where the meaning is plain. The clauses governing limitation constitute fetters and are therefore to be construed strictly. Since the assessee sought to claim deduction un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
