1978 (4) TMI 1 - SC - Income Tax

Income from business of generation and distribution of electricity - assessee sold some of its old machinery and buildings resulting in balancing charges contemplated by section 41(2) which the Income-tax Officer worked out at Rs. 7, 55, 807 - both the Tribunal and the High Court were right in taking the view that the item of Rs. 7, 55, 807 was required to be taken into account while computing the deduction of 8% contemplated by section 80E(1)

Summary

Issues Presented and Considered

Two primary legal questions arise from the appeals concerning the computation of the 8% deduction under section 80E(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:

1. Whether the profits arising under section 41(2) of the Act, specifically the balancing charge from the sale of old machinery and buildings, should be included in the income on which the 8% deduction under section 80E(1) is computed.

2. Whether unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed development rebate carried forward from earlier years are deductible before computing the profits on which the 8% deduction under section 80E(1) is to be applied.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

Issue 1: Inclusion of Balancing Charges under Section 41(2) in Computing Deduction under Section 80E(1)

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 80E(1) provides for an 8% deduction from profits and gains attributable to specified industries, including the generation and distribution of electricity. Section 41(2) creates a legal fiction whereby balancing charges arising from the sale of machinery or buildings are deemed to be income of the business. The key precedents discussed include:

• A decision explaining the balancing charge as a capital return, not true income, under the 1922 Act (Bipinchandra Maganlal & Co. Ltd.).
• A later decision (Express Newspapers Ltd.) characterizing balancing charges as "escaped profits" of the business, taxable as income.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court emphasized the three-step legislative mandate under section 80E(1): first, compute total income under other provisions of the Act; second, ascertain profits and gains attributable to the specified business; third, deduct 8% from such profits and gains. The Court held that the balancing charge under section 41(2), though a legal fiction, is part of the total income computed under the Act's provisions and must be included before applying the 8% deduction.

The Court rejected the revenue's argument that the balancing charge is a capital receipt and thus excluded from profits attributable to the business for deduction purposes. It reasoned that the legislative use of the phrase "profits and gains attributable to" (a wider term than "derived from") indicates an intention to include such items. The Court further held that the legal fiction under section 41(2) is created precisely to treat this balancing charge as business income for tax computation, and its inclusion before deduction does not extend the fiction beyond its legislative purpose.

Key Evidence and Findings: The income-tax officer had included the balancing charge of Rs. 7,55,807 in the income on which the 8% deduction was computed. The Additional Commissioner challenged this, but both the Tribunal and High Court upheld inclusion. The Court agreed with this approach.

Application of Law to Facts: The balancing charge arose from the sale of old machinery and buildings during the relevant accounting year. Since the company is engaged in generation and distribution of electricity, the profits from such sale are attributable to the business under the legal fiction of section 41(2) and must be included in the income for section 80E(1) deduction computation.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue's reliance on the capital nature of the balancing charge and limitation of legal fictions was addressed by emphasizing the statutory language and purpose of section 80E(1). The Court found the revenue's argument unpersuasive, particularly given the express legislative language and the purpose of the legal fiction.

Conclusion: The Court held that the balancing charge under section 41(2) must be included in the profits and gains attributable to the business for computing the 8% deduction under section 80E(1).

Issue 2: Deductibility of Unabsorbed Depreciation and Development Rebate Before Computing Deduction under Section 80E(1)

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Sections 32(2) and 33(2) provide for the carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate, respectively. The question is whether these items are deductible before computing the profits on which the 8% deduction under section 80E(1) applies. The Court also considered decisions of Kerala and Madras High Courts on related issues concerning carried forward losses and deductions under section 80E(1), notably Indian Transformers Ltd. and L. M. Van Moppes Diamond Tools (India) Ltd., as well as the Madras High Court's decision in Lucas-T V. S. Ltd. (No. 2).

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court reiterated the three-step approach under section 80E(1), focusing on the parenthetical phrase "as computed in accordance with the other provisions of this Act." This mandates computation of total income including deductions allowable under other provisions before applying the 8% deduction. Since unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate are allowable deductions under sections 32(2) and 33(2), they must be deducted before computing the profits on which the 8% deduction applies.

The Court rejected the assessee's argument that "total income" in section 80E(1) was used in a commercial sense excluding such deductions. It held that the statutory definition of "total income" under section 2(45) and the explicit language of section 80E(1) negate this interpretation.

Regarding the conflicting High Court decisions, the Court expressed grave doubts about the reasoning that carried forward losses are not deductible before computing the 8% deduction. It held that such views conflict with the legislative mandate and the structure of the Act, particularly the role of sections 30 to 43A and section 72 concerning carry forward and set off of losses.

The Court distinguished the Mysore High Court decision in Balanoor Tea and Rubber Co. Ltd., which dealt with losses from non-priority businesses, as irrelevant to the present issue.

Key Evidence and Findings: The High Court had held that unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate aggregating Rs. 2,54,613 were deductible before computing the 8% deduction. The Court agreed with this approach based on statutory construction.

Application of Law to Facts: The assessee had unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate from earlier years, which were rightly deducted before applying the 8% deduction under section 80E(1).

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court critically examined the assessee's reliance on certain High Court decisions and the argument that total income should be construed commercially. It found these arguments inconsistent with the Act's language and legislative intent.

Conclusion: The Court held that unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate must be deducted before computing the profits eligible for the 8% deduction under section 80E(1).

Significant Holdings

On the first issue, the Court stated:

"...on proper construction of sub-section (1) and having regard to the legislative mandate contained in the three steps that are required to be taken in the manner indicated above we are clearly of the view that the item of Rs. 7,55,807 will have to be taken into account before computing the 8% deduction contemplated by the said provision."

On the second issue, the Court observed:

"...in computing the total income of the concerned assessee, items of unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed development rebate will have to be deducted before arriving at the figure that will become exigible to the deduction of 8% contemplated by section 80E(1)."

Core principles established include:

• The balancing charge under section 41(2) is to be included in business income for the purpose of computing the 8% deduction under section 80E(1), regardless of its character as a capital or revenue receipt, due to the statutory language and purpose.
• The phrase "profits and gains attributable to the business" is broader than "derived from," encompassing items like balancing charges.
• Unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate carried forward must be deducted before computing the 8% deduction under section 80E(1), as mandated by the Act's provisions.
• Legal fictions created under the Act should be applied within their legislative purpose and context, including for computing special deductions.
• Conflicting High Court decisions on non-deductibility of carried forward losses before section 80E(1) deduction are questionable and inconsistent with the legislative scheme.

Final determinations:

• The revenue's appeal challenging inclusion of balancing charges in income for deduction computation was dismissed.
• The assessee's appeal challenging deduction of unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate before computing the 8% deduction was also dismissed.