Commissioner of Income Tax vs English Electric Co. of India Ltd.

Janarthanam , J.—In this tax case, the question that falls for consideration is reflected as below :

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of Section 43A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961,

the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is entitled to development rebate u/s 33 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the

increased cost of the machinery of Rs. 1,41,185 due to devaluation of Indian currency on June 6, 1966 ?

The assessee is an Indian company dealing in the manufacture and sale of electronic instruments, relays, fusegears, etc. For the assessment year

1967-68, the assessee furnished a return declaring a loss of Rs. 11,92,468 and the assessment was, however, completed on a total income of Rs.

29,06,220.

The assessee purchased certain machinery from foreign parties in August, 1965, at a cost of Rs. 2,45,540 and installed it in his factory during

October and November, 1965. The actual payment for this machinery was made only in August, 1966, and in between this was devaluation of

Indian currency on June 6, 1966.

As a result of devaluation, the assessee had to pay the increase in value of rupee to the extent of Rs. 1,41,185.

The assessee claimed development rebate on the sum of Rs. 1,41,185 also on the ground that the actual cost as per Section 43(1) of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ""the Act""), would include the increased cost in view of the devaluation of the Indian currency.

The Income Tax Officer did not allow the claim of the assessee. According to him, the provisions of Section 43A(2) clearly prohibits allowance

of development rebate on the increased cost payable due to devaluation as per Section 43A(2) of the Act and, therefore, the assessee was not

entitled to development rebate on the increased cost due to devaluation.

On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the action of the Income Tax Officer.

The assessee went on appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal relying on the decision of this court in the case of Additional

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kwality Spinning Mills (Private) Ltd., , and also the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Arvind

Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat-II, , held that as the effect of Sub-section (2) of Section 43A of the Income Tax Act is only

to exclude the applicability of Sub-section (1) thereof to the computation of the actual cost for determining the development rebate allowable u/s

33 in computing the actual cost of the asset for the purpose of development rebate. The only provision relevant is Section 43(1) defining ""actual

cost"" and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to development rebate on the amount of Rs. 1,41,185 also, which was payable as a result of change

in the rate of exchange of currency and, consequently, the claim was allowed giving rise to the present action--T. C. No. 172 of 1982.

The arguments of Mrs. Chitra Venkaturaman, learned counsel representing the Revenue, and Mr. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja, learned counsel

representing Mr. Utham Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, were heard.

Our attention has been drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat Vs. Arvind Mills

Ltd., , wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court expressed the view contra to the view expressed by this court in the case of Additional

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kwality Spinning Mills (Private) Ltd., and Arvind Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat-II, , and

their Lordships of the Supreme Court clearly said that the language of Section 43A is perfectly clear, and it is the clear requirement of the statute

that, for the purpose of development rebate any increase or decrease in the actual cost consequent on fluctuations in the exchange rate should not

be taken into account. It is not necessary to attribute any particular reason for the provision when the language of the section is otherwise plain and

unambiguous. On the face of the language of Section 43A(2), it would not be right to permit the assessees to claim development rebate on the

increased cost.

In this view of the matter, the aforesaid question has to be necessarily answered against the assessee, and, therefore, it is answered in the

negative and in favour of the Revenue.

This tax case is thus disposed of. There shall however, be no order as to costs, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.