1985 (2) TMI 13 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions of section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the inclusion of borrowed capital in computing capital employed for the purpose of tax relief.
2. Validity of rectification under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in relation to the deduction admissible under section 80J for the assessment year.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the Commissioner of Income-tax sought direction for the Appellate Tribunal to refer questions regarding the interpretation of section 80J provisions. The dispute arose from the exclusion of borrowed capital while computing the capital employed for tax relief under section 80J. The Income-tax Officer rectified the deduction under section 154, which was challenged by the assessee, leading to appeals and subsequent disagreement between the Commissioner and the Tribunal on the debatability of the issue (Issue 1).

The Commissioner and the Tribunal considered the exclusion of borrowed capital for section 80J relief as debatable until the High Court's decisions in CIT v. Anand Bahri Steel & Wire Products and CIT v. K N Oil Industries clarified the validity of rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The High Court held that the rule, consistent with Parliament's intention, was valid and within the rule-making power conferred by section 80J. This ruling contradicted previous decisions by other High Courts, which deemed rule 19A(3) ultra vires, leading to a settled dispute by the Supreme Court in Lohia Machines Ltd v. Union of India, approving the High Court's decision (Issue 1).

Subsequently, the High Court directed the Tribunal to refer a question in light of the Supreme Court's decision, questioning the Tribunal's justification in confirming the Commissioner's order and quashing the Income-tax Officer's rectification under section 154 for the assessment year. The judgment highlighted the importance of adherence to the Supreme Court's ruling in Lohia Machines Ltd v. Union of India, emphasizing the validity of rule 19A and the exclusion of borrowed capital in computing "capital employed" for section 80J relief (Issue 2).