PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS Vs. RESPONDENT: M/S. P.S.S. INVESTMENTS (P) LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT09/11/1976 BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ KRISHNAIYER, V.R. CITATION: 1977 AIR 424 1977 SCR (2) 78 1976 SCC (4) 712 ACT: Finance Act, 1958, First Schedule Part II, Explana- tion (iii) to paragraph D--Calculation of rebate in compu- tation of super-tax, whether profits earned during previous year to be taken into account. HEADNOTE: The Income-tax officer took into account the respond- ent's entire dividend income of the year ending December 30, 1957, while calculating the super-tax payable by it for the assessment year 1958-59. In appeal against the computation the respondent contended before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the dividend-income included profits earned during the previous years, and that rebate should be reduced only with reference to the proportionate part of the dividend declared during 1957 which had come out of the other income assessed to income-tax. and super-tax in the assessment year 1957-58. The respondent's contention was accepted in principle. The Department's appeal was dis- missed by the Appellate Tribunal. The matter was then referred to the High Court under section 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, and decided in favour of the assessee. Allowing the appeals the Court, HELD: For computing the reduction in rebate under para- graph D of Part II of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1958, the position of profits and gains as it existed in the previous year should be taken into account and not in the years prior to that Clause (iii) introduces a fiction with regard to the amount of dividends which shall be deemed to have been distributed. The taxing authorities have to take into account the company's total income and the profits and gains other than capital receipts reduced by certain allow- ances only in the previous year, i.e., the year in which the dividend was distributed. The fact that those profits and gains accrued in years prior to the previous year and in- cluded' portions which were exempt from tax under the provi- sions of the Income-tax Act would not be of much relevance. [85 A-D] JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1853(A)
and 1854 of 1971.
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 18th April,
1969 of the Madras High Court Madras in Tax Cases Nos. 18
and 19 of 1966.
V.S. Desai, J. Ratnamurthi and M.N. Shroff, for the Appel-
lant.
T.A. Ramachandran, for Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KHANNA, J. This judgment would dispose of two civil
appeals Nos. 1853(A) and 1854 of 1971 which have been filed
on certificate by the Commissioner of Income-tax against the
judgment of Madras High Court (reported in 79 ITR 456)
answering the following two questions referred to it in two
references under section 66(1) of
79
the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 in the affirmative in favour
of the assessee and against the revenue:
“1. Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Appellate
Tribunal was right in holding that for
computing the reduction in rebate under Para D
of Part II to the First schedule to the
Finance Act, 1959 (in R. A. No. 169 of 1965-
66) and of Finance Act, 1958,(in R.A. No.
168 of 1965-66) in the composition of profits
of the year from which the dividend had been
declared should be looked into, and
2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was
right in law in holding that the paid up
capital of the assessee company should be
proportionately reduced for the purpose of
reducing the rebate in Corporation Tax in the
manner directed.”
The matter relates to the assessment of the respondent
company for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. For
sake of convenience we may set out the facts relating to the
assessment year 1958-59. It is the common case of the
parties that the decision about that year would also
govern the point of controversy relating to the other
year.-The assessee is a private limited company. In the
previous year ending on December 31, 1957 relevant for the
assessment year 1958-.59, it declared a dividend of Rs.
99.000. Its paid up capital was Rs. 1,65,000. The total
income of the assessee company was determined at Rs. 73,255
made up as under:
Rs.
Business Nil Other sources 26,554 Capital gains 46,701 Total income 73,255
As the dividend of Rs. 99,000 declared by the assessee
company was in excess of 6 per cent of the paid up capital
of the company, the Income-tax Officer worked up the
super-tax payable by the. assessee as under:
RS.
Corporation tax @ 50 % on Rs. 26,554 13,277
less rebate @ 30 % on Rs. 26,554 7,966.20
Reduction in rebate
Up to 6%0 of the paid-up capital 9900 . Nil
6% to 10% of the paid up capital in 6600
@ 10% 660.00
Balance at 20% 82500 @ 20% 1,65,00.00
17,160.00
Balance carried forward to next year 9,193.80
The assessee company objected to the above computation
of the super-tax and took the matter in appeal to the Appel-
late Assistant Commissioner. It w.as urged on behalf of
the assessee that the dividend of Rs. 99,000 declared
during the year ending 1957 was
80
out of the profits of the previous year which ended on
December 31, 1956. According to the assessee, the dividend
income determined for the assessment year 1957-58 was Rs.
1,74,196 which included capital gains to the extent of
Rs. 1,10,105. The dividend of Rs. 99,000, it was urged,
should be apportioned between the capital gain of Rs.
1,10,105 and the other income of Rs. 64,091 after taking
into account the tax payable thereon. The assessee computed
the figures as under:
Rs.
Capital receipts not assessable 44,279 Capital gains is assessed less tax 75,423 Other income less tax 22,492 1,42,194
The assessee claimed that rebate should be reduced only with
reference to the sum of Rs. 15,659 being proportionate part
of the dividend declared during the previous year ending on
December 31, 1957 which had come out of the other income
assessed to income-tax and super-tax in the assessment year
1957-58. The figure of Rs. 15,659 was arrived at by the
assessee as under:
99,000 x 22,492
—————-
1,42, 194
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted in princi-
ple the assessee’s contention that the components of the
dividend should be considered with reference to the profits
of the previous year. He, however, computed proportionate
dividend at a higher figure by including the capital gains
of Rs. 75,423 with the sum of Rs. 22,492 as shown below:
Rs.
Net available profits attributable to assessed
income (22,492-75,423) 97,915
Net available profits 1,42,194
Dividends declared 99,000
97,915 99,000
Proportionate dividend: ————— =68,171
1,42,194
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner retained the
paid up capital at Rs. 1,65,000 as per balance sheet with-
out apportionment on the basis of taxed and non-taxed in-
come.
The department took the matter in appeal to the Appel-
late Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal hold-
ing that the “previous year” under Explanation (iii) to
Paragraph D of Part II to the First Schedule to the Finance
Act, 1958, refers only to the previous year out of the
profits of which the dividends were declared and therefore
the composition of the profits and gains of the company out
of which dividends were declared had to be looked into for
working out the proportion under Explanation (iii) to Para-
graph D of Part II to the First Schedule to the Finance Act
of 1958.
At the instance of the Commissioner, the questions
reproduced above were thereafter referred to the High Court.
81
In appeal before the High Court, it was argued on behalf
of the revenue that dividends having been distributed during
the accounting year relevant to the assessment year in
question, it is that year alone which has to be taken into
consideration for calculating the supertax under the appro-
priate Finance Act. The fact that such profits were trace-
able to the profits earned during the year prior to the
accounting year, according to the submission, was not of
significance and had to be ignored for the purpose of work-
ing out the quantum of rebate in such super-tax made avail-
able in the Finance Act. It was accordingly urged that the
year of distribution, namely, the accounting year, is the
only basis for the calculation of the rebate. As against
that, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that it
would be unreal if the years in which the profits had been
admittedly earned was to be ignored and reliance was placed
for calculation of rebate on the ministerial act of distri-
bution. The High Court, while answering the questions
referred to it in favour of the assessee and against the
revenue, observed us under:
“If, therefore, ‘distribution’ is thus
to be understood as a ministerial act
resulting from the indoor management of the
company, can that be the sine qua non to
decide the question of quantum of rebate to
which the company would be entitled under a
particular Finance Act? If the year in which
distribution is to be effected is considered
for purposes of the Finance Act and for the
determination of the quantum of rebate, then
it would result in a notional implementation
of the benefit contemplated by the legislature
to a company in the nature of a rebate and
would not amount to a realistic approach of
such a vital problem connected with the
finances of the company. It may be that in
any particular year when distribution of
dividends have been made, the paid-up capital
might have been reduced or increased, as the
case may be. Is that paid-up capital going to
be taken as the basis for working out the
relative benefits or disadvantages to be
enjoyed or suffered by a company? We are of
the view that it is neither the intention of
the legislature, nor could it be said to be a
reasonable inference of the provisions
thereto. In fact, the Explanation to the Fi-
nance Act, 1958, which elucidates the term
‘paid-up capital’, gives the key to the
interpretation of the word ‘distribution’.
‘Paid-up capital’ means the paid-up capital of
the company on the first day of the previous
year relevant for the assessment year ending
on 31st March, 1959. It is, therefore, clear
that the paid-up capital of the company during
the assessment year cannot be said, for
purposes of Paragraph D of Part II of the
First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1958, to.
be the paid-up capital of the year in which
the profits arose and from which dividends
were distributed during the assessment year.”
Before dealing with the contentions advanced, it may be
appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions. According
to. section 55 of the Indian income-tax Act, 1922, in addi-
tion to the income-tax
7–1458SCI/76
82
charged for any year there shall be charged, levied and paid
for that year in respect of the total income of the previ-
ous year of any individual, Hindu undivided family,
company, local authority, unregistered firm or other associ-
ation of persons, not being a registered firm, or the part-
ners of the firm or members of the association individually,
an additional duty of income-tax (in this Act referred to as
super-tax) at the rate or rates laid down for that year by a
Central Act. Clause (b) of section 2 of the Finance Act,
1958 (Act No. 11 of 1958) provides, inter alia, that subject
to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) with which we
are not concerned, for the year beginning on the first day
of April 1958.
“(b) super-tax shall, for the purposes
of section 55 of the Indian Income-tax Act,
1922 (XI of 1922) (hereinafter referred to as
the Income-tax Act), be charged at the rates
specified in Part II of the First Schedule.”
We are concerned in the present case with Paragraph D of
Part II of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1958. The
relevant part of the above paragraph reads as under:
RATE OF SUPER-TAX
In the case of every other company,–
RATES OF SUPER-TAX On the whole of the total
income ……………… 50%: Provided that
,–
(i) ……………
(ii) a rebate at the rate of 40 per cent
on so much of the total income as consists of
dividends from a subsidiary Indian company and
a rebate at the rate of 30 per cent on the
balance of the total income shall be allowed
in the case of any company which satisfies
condition (a) but not condition (b) of the
preceding clause;
(iii)……………
Provided further that,–
(i) the amount of the rebate under clause
(i) or clause (ii) shall be reduced by the
sum, if any, equal to the amount or the
aggregate of the amounts, as the case may be,
computed as hereunder:
…………..
…………..
(c) in addition, in the case of a
company referred to in clause (ii) of the
preceding proviso which has distributed to its
shareholders during the previous year
dividends in excess of six per cent of its
paid-up capital, not being dividends payable
at a fixed rate–
83
(A) in the case of a company which is not
such as is referred to in sub-section (9) of
section 23A of the Income-tax Act :–
on that part of the said dividends
which exceeds 6 per cent, but does not exceed
10 per cent of the paid-up capital;
at the rate of 10%
on that part of the said dividends
which exceeds 10 per cent of the paid-up
capital;
at the
rate of 20%
Explanation.–For the purpose of this
paragraph-
(i) ……………….
(ii) ……………….
(iii) where any portion of the profits and
gains of the company is not included in its
total income by reason of such portion being
exempt from tax under any provision of the
Income-tax Act, the ‘paid-up capital’ of the
company, the amount distributed as dividends
(not being dividends payable at a fixed rate),
the amount representing the face value of any
bonus shares and the amount of any bonus
issued to the shareholders shall each be
deemed to be such proportion thereof as the
total income of the company for the previous
year bears to its total profits and gains for
that year other than capital receipts, reduced
by such allowances as may be admissible under
the Income-tax Act which have not been taken
into account by the company in its profit and
loss account for that year.”
In appeal before us Mr. Desai on behalf of the appel-
lant has urged that dividend having been distributed during
the accounting year relevant to the assessment year in
question, it is the profits and gains of that year alone
which should be taken into consideration for calculating the
rebate in the levy of super-tax. The fact that such divi-
dend was distributed out of the profits earned in the years
prior to that was, according to. the learned counsel,
irrelevant. Particular stress in this context has been laid
upon the language of clause (iii) of the Explanation con-
tained in Paragraph D of Part II of the First Schedule to
the Finance Act,1958. As against that, Mr. Ramachandran who
has argued the case amicus curiae has canvassed for the
correctness of the view taken by the High Court.
We have set out above the relevant part of Paragraph D
of Part II of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1958.
The language in which the above paragraph is couched is so
complex and is hedged in with so many exceptions and provi-
sos that it can hardly be regarded as a model of clari-
ty in legislative draftsmanship. Paragraph D initially
prescribes the rate of super-tax at 50 per cent on the total
income of the company. The first proviso then makes
84
provision for rebate in the assessment of the super-tax.
The rebate for a company like the respondent with no income
in the form of dividend from a subsidiary company is to be
at the rate of 30 per cent. The second proviso carves out
reduction in the rebate. Clause (c) of that proviso sets out
the formula for calculating that reduction at a sliding
scale in case the amount of distributed dividend exceeds 6
per cent of the paid-up capital. There then follows a third
proviso but we are not concerned with that. At the end
comes the Explanation consisting of three clauses. For the
purpose of the present case, the relevant clause is (iii).
The said clause makes provision in cases which fall within
its ambit for a further reduction in the reduction mentioned
above. To put it in other words, the paragraph seeks to
prescribe the rate of super-tax. It then proceeds to grant
some relief to the tax payer in the levy of . super-tax.
It thereafter makes a cut in that relief. Finally, it
prescribes a cut in that cut. The intelligence of even
those with legal background gets staggered in this continu-
ous process of carving exceptions to exceptions. It seems
more like a conundrum, baffling the mind and requiring
special acumen to unravel its mystique. One can only wonder
as to how the ordinary tax payers, most of whom are laymen,
can keep abreast of such laws. Yet the maxim is that every
one is presumed to know the law. The one redeeming feature
is that the above pattern was given up after 1959. From
1960 to 1964 there was another pattern. Since 1965 the
charge of super-tax has been discontinued and the rates of
income-tax have been so increased as to absorb fully the
former levy of super-tax.
The fate of these appeals, as would appear from the
above, depends upon the wording of clause (iii) of the
Explanation. The said clause contemplates, inter alia, that
in calculating the amount deemed to have been distributed as
dividends, certain proportion of the amount actually dis-
tributed has to be taken into. account. The said clause,
shorn of the portions with which we are not concerned, reads
as under:
Where any portion of the profits and
gains of the company is not included in its
total income by reason of such portion being
exempt from tax under any provision of the
Income-tax Act, ……the amount distributed
as dividends ….. shall..be deemed to be
such proportion thereof as the total income of
the company for the previous year bears to
its total profits and gains for that year
other than capital receipts, reduced by such
allowances as may be admissible under the
Income-tax Act which have not been taken into
account by the company in its profit and loss
account for that year.
The above clause provides a formula which has to be
applied for determining the amount of dividends which shall
be deemed to have been distributed in considering the
quantum of rebate for assessing the super-tax payable by
a company. The occasion for applying this formula is indi-
cated by the opening lines of the clause and arises when any
portion of the profits and gains of the company
85
is not included in its total income by reason of such por-
tion being exempt from tax under the provisions of the
Income-tax Act. Once such an occasion arises, we have to
apply the formula contained in the tatter part of the
clause. According to that formula, the amount distributed
as dividends shall be deemed to be such proportion thereof
as the total income of the previous year bears to its total
profits and gains for that year other than capital re-
ceipts, reduced by certain allowances with which we are
not concerned. The words “for the previous year” and “for
that year” indicate that in finding for the purpose of
rebate the amount of dividends which shall be deemed to
have been distributed, we have to look to the figure of
total income and the amount of profits and gains other than
capital receipts of the company reduced by certain allow-
ances in the previous year alone and not earlier years.
Clause (iii) introduces a fiction with regard to the
amount of dividends which shall be deemed to have been
distributed. Such a fiction can operate only within the
limits prescribed by the language of the statute creating
that fiction. The language used in clause (iii) points to
the conclusion that the taxing authorities have to take into
account the company’s total income and the profits and gains
other than capital receipts reduced by certain allowances
only in the previous year, i.e., the year in which the
dividend was distributed. The fact that those profits and
gains accrued in years prior to the previous year and in-
cluded portions which were exempt from tax under the provi-
sions of the Income-tax Act would not be of much relevance
as the language of the clause requires the taxing authori-
ties to look to the position of profits and gains in the
previous year alone. We would, therefore, modify the answer
given by the High Court to question No. (1) and answer the
aforesaid question in the negative. The correct answer, in
our opinion, should be that for computing the reduction
in rebate under Paragraph D of Part II of the First Schedule
to the Finance Act, 1958 the position of profits and gains
as it existed in the previous year should be taken into
account and not in the years prior to that.
No arguments have been addressed before us on the answer
to question No. (2).
We accordingly accept the appeals, set aside the judg-
ment of the High Court and answer question No. (1) in the
negative as indicated above. The parties in the circum-
stances shall bear their own costs in this Court and in the
High Court.
M.R. Appeals
allowed.
86