Commissioner of Income Tax vs Tamilnadu Textile Corporation

Abdul Hadi, J.—In these three tax cases, the question of law referred to this Court under s. 256 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to

as ""the Act""), is the same. All the tax cases have been preferred by the Revenue and the assessee in all the three cases is the same, viz., the Tamil

Nadu Textile Corpn., Coimbatore.

Tax Case No. 477 of 1985 relates to the asst. yr. 1978-79, Tax Case No. 478 of 1985 relates to the asst. yr. 1979-80 and Tax Case No. 322

of 1986 relates to the asst. yr. 1980-81.

The question referred is as follows :

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deduction referred to in s. 36(1)(viii) of the Act requires to be computed at 25 per

cent of the total income before deduction of the amount so allowed or of the total assessed income ?

Answering the said question involves interpretation of the expression, ""total income computed before making any deduction under Chapter VI-

A"", appearing in s. 36(1)(viii) during the abovesaid assessment years. The deduction under s. 36(1)(viii) has to be calculated on a particular

percentage of the abovesaid total income. However, in 1985, an amendment was made by which instead of the abovesaid extracted expression,

the following expression was substituted :

total income (computed before making any deduction under this clause and Chapter VI-A).

Thus, by the abovesaid amendment of 1985, the abovesaid percentage of deduction under the said clause has been expressly stated as having

to be computed on the total income as computed before making any deduction not only under Chapter VI-A, but also under the said clause.

No doubt, when the amendment was made in the year 1985, the legislature did not declare in the memorandum explaining the relevant Finance

Bill, which brought the amendment, that the amendment sought to be brought forward was declaratory in nature or it had been enacted only for the

removal of doubts.

But, what it observed in the abovesaid memorandum is as follows :

Under the existing provisions, the total income for this purpose is the total income as computed before making any deduction under Chapter VI-

A. It is proposed to provide that the deduction shall be for an amount not exceeding 40 per cent of the total income as computed before making

any deduction under the aforesaid provision and Chapter VI-A.

So, at the first blush, it appears that for the first time the legislature wanted to introduce the expression ""under this clause"" in the said s. 36(1)

(viii). That is one reason for the Karnataka High Court i Karnataka State Financial Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, holding that

prior to the said amendment of 1985, for computing the abovesaid percentage of deduction, the total income should be only that ""total income"" as

defined under s. 2(45) of the Act, but not taking into account only the deduction under Chapter VI-A of the Act.

But, very many other High Courts have held differently in several reported decisions, which are Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bihar State

Financial Corporation, , Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, , Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M.P.

Audyogik Vikas Nigam Ltd. (No. 1), , Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, , Commissioner

of Income Tax Vs. Gujarat State Finance Corporation, and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation

Ltd., . On going through these decisions, we find that these High Courts, for coming to the abovesaid different conclusion in favour of the assessee,

inter alia, relied on the expression ""unless the context otherwise requires"" appearing in the main part of s. 2 of the Act (i.e., before the said section

embarks on defining certain expressions used in the enactment, including the abovesaid expression ""total income""). In other words, according to

those decisions, contextually, the expression ""total income"" appearing in s. 36(1)(viii) should be given only that meaning which would exclude not

only the abovereferred to Chapter VI-A deduction, but also the deduction referred to in the said cl. (viii) of s. 36(1).

No doubt, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue relied very much on the decision in Karnataka State Financial Corpn. vs. CIT (supra)

though he was fair enough to bring to our notice the other decisions referred to above, which are against the Revenue. On the other hand, learned

counsel for the assessee relied on those other decisions of other High Courts. After going through the relevant decisions, we also feel that the

reasoning adopted by several High Courts other than Karnataka High Court, is a sound one and, accordingly, we adopt the same reasoning and

conclude, by answering the abovesaid question, against the Revenue and stating that the said deduction under s. 36(1)(viii) in the abovesaid

assessment years required to be computed at 25 per cent of the total income not only before making any deduction under Chapter VI-A, but also

before making any deduction under the said clause.