Commissioner of Income Tax vs Peirce Leslie and Co. Ltd.

Thanikkachalam, J.—At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following two common questions for the asst. yrs. 1968-

69, 1969-70 and 1972-73, under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') for the opinion of this Court :

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the order passed under s. 154 of the IT Act, in

the assessee''s case for the asst. yr. 1969-70 ?

Whether the Tribunal''s view that the issue under dispute is highly debatable and, therefore, the provisions of s. 154 could not be applied to the

assessee''s case is sustainable in law ?

For these three assessment years the assessee had capital gains in respect of depreciable assets acquired before 1st January, 1954. The ITO

had in the computation of capital gains for these three assessment years allowed the assessee in original assessment the option for fair market value

as on 1st January, 1954. Later he invoked s. 154 of the Act and deprived the assessee of that option of fair market value and revised the

assessments by taking the written down value (WDV) and accordingly revised the assessments by taking the WDV as the cost of acquisition. The

AAC confirmed the order passed by the ITO.

Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the view taken by the IT authorities that the assessee is not

entitled to exercise option for adopting fair market value as on 1st January, 1954 in respect of depreciable assets acquired before 1st January,

1954, is correct. But the Tribunal held that the issue is highly debatable and that much can be said on both sides in favour of and against the

assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal held that in as much as the issue involved is debatable, s. 154 of the Act is not applicable. In that view of the

matter, the Tribunal cancelled the rectification order passed by the ITO under s. 154 of the Act.

So far as the issue on merits is concerned, even the Tribunal accepted that inasmuch as the assessee acquired depreciable assets before 1st

January, 1954, it cannot exercise the option to adopt fair market value as on 1st January, 1954 because the provision of s. 50 of the Act are

mandatory. In the case of assessees, the cost of acquisition on depreciable asset has got to be valued in accordance with sub-s. (1) of s. 50 of the

Act. When s. 50(1) is applicable, the assessee can have no option to adopt the fair market value as on 1st January, 1954 in respect of the

depreciable assets acquired before 1st January, 1954. This view was adumbrated by various High Courts. The Gujarat High Court in the case of

Rajnagar Vaktapur Ginning, Pressing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat I, , the Allahabad

High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Upper Doab Sugar Mills, , the Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner of

Income Tax Vs. Commonwealth Trust Ltd., ) and the Calcutta High Court in the case of India Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax,

uniformly came to the conclusion that for the computation of income under the head ""capital gains"" in respect of the depreciable assets which had

become the assessee''s property before 1st January, 1954, and which were sold by it during the previous year relevant to the assessment year

under consideration, the assessee is not entitled to seek the aid of s. 55(2)(i) and substitute the fair market value as on 1st January, 1954, as the

cost of acquisition thereof in place of their WDV. In the above said decisions, it was further held that determination of costs of acquisition under s.

55(2) of the IT Act, 1961, which enables the assessee to exercise the option to adopt fair market value of the asset as on 1st January, 1954 is for

the purpose of ss. 48 and 49 only. Sec. 50 is a special provision concerning with the determination of capital gains in regard to the depreciable

assets. Therefore, on merits, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is not entitled to exercise the option to adopt the fair market

value as on 1st January, 1954 with regard to the depreciable asset acquired before 1st January, 1954 while computing the capital gains.

The second part of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the assessee was that since there is debatable issue and there is long

drawn arguments involved in respect of applicability of s. 50(1) of the Act to the fact of this case, s. 154 of the Act cannot be invoked. Learned

counsel further submitted that when there are other provisions like ss. 147, and 263, etc. of the Act, the ITO ought not to have resorted to the

provisions contained in s. 154 of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that in view of the provisions contained in s. 55(2)

of the Act, there is debate in the matter of ascertaining the costs of acquisition by adopting the fair market value as on 1st January, 1954 by

exercising the option.

We have heard the rival submissions. In the above cited decisions, it was pointed out that the cost of acquisition of the depreciable asset is

bound to be computed in accordance with s. 50 of the Act. In other words s. 55(2) is applicable only in respect of ss. 48 and 49 of the Act and it

has no application to s. 50 of the Act. Thus, where more than one High Court understood the provisions contained in s. 50 and s. 55(2) of the Act

in a particular manner, it is not open to give different interpretation other than what was given by the various High Courts as stated above. It cannot

be said that there is any debatable issue in the matter of ascertaining the cost of acquisition under s. 50 of the Act. Even during the time, when the

Tribunal passed its order, two decisions rendered by the Gujarat High Court and Allahabad High Court cited supra were available on this aspect.

Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any debatable issue or long-drawn arguments involved in understanding or interpreting the provisions of s.

50 of the Act. In the case of T. Manickavasagam Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu, , this Court has held that if a provision

which is inapplicable to the facts, has been applied, then it is a mistake on the face of the record. Similarly in the case of Commissioner of Income

Tax, Tamil Nadu-IV, Madras Vs. Sundaram Textiles Limited, , this Court has held that the application of a wrong provision of the Act or the

erroneous application of the case to the facts of the case, which do not call for such application will amount to a mistake apparent on the record for

the purpose of s. 154 of the Act. In the present case, the ITO applied the wrong provisions of law in the original assessment while permitting the

assessee to exercise its option to offer fair market value as on 1st January, 1954, for cost of acquisition of depreciable asset. This was permitted

on the mistaken application of law. Later on, by invoking the provisions of s.154 of the Act the ITO has withdrawn the permission given to the

assessee to exercise its option to offer fair market value as on 1st January, 1954. Since there is an error apparent on the face of the records in

passing the original assessment order, warranting application of s. 154, the order of the Tribunal was not correct in cancelling the rectification order

passed by the authorities below under s. 154 of the Act. In that view of the matter, we answer these questions referred to us in the negative and in

favour of the Department. There will be no order as to costs.