Kerala H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, assessee is entitled to get deduction under s. 80HHC of IT Act, 1961, before applying r. 8(1) of the IT Rules ?

Counsel Appeared

P.K. Ravindranatha Menon & George K. George, for the Applicant : C.N. Ramachandran Nair, for the Respondent

EDITORIAL COMMENTS

Similar view has been taken by the Calcutta High Court by its judgment dt. 24th Sept., 1998 in the case of Warren Tea Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2000) 158 CTR (Cal) 327 : (1999) 236 ITR 492 (Cal), where the contrary view expressed in Board Circular No. 600 dt. 23rd May, 1991 was held to be wrong. A somewhat contrary view had been taken by the Gauhati High Court in the case of Assam Co. Ltd. vs. State of Assam (1996) 130 CTR (Gau) 468 : (1996) 219 ITR 59 (Gau) : TC S31.3048 from which the Calcutta High Court dissented from. It may however be noted that a sub-s. (4B) has been inserted in s. 80HHC by the Finance Act, 1999 with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1992 to provide that for the purposes of computing deduction under s. 80HHC, the amount of income not being charged to tax under the Act shall in no case be eligible for deduction under the section. This has special reference to agricultural income vis-a-vis r. 8, hence deduction under s. 80HHC has to be allowed only after applying r. 8.

JUDGMENT

ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.J. :

Accepting prayer in terms of s. 256(1) of IT Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) made by Revenue, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (In short, the Tribunal) has referred following question for opinion of this Court : “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, assessee is entitled to get deduction under s. 80HHC of IT Act, 1961, before applying r. 8(1) of the IT Rules ?” Factual position is undisputed and needs to be noted in brief. Assessee is a company in which public are substantially interested. It is engaged mainly in the business of cultivation, manufacture and sale of tea. For asst. yr. 1985-86, assessee claimed deduction under s. 80HHC of Act in respect of entire export business of tea manufactured in its own estate. As only 40 per cent of such turnover has to be taken for income-tax purposes, deduction under s. 80HHC in respect of aforesaid turnover was restricted to 40 per cent of such turnover by AO. In appeal, CIT(A) upheld the assessment. Matter was carried by assessee before Tribunal, which held that assessee was entitled to get deduction under s. 80HHC before applying r. 8(1) of IT Rules, 1962 (in short, the Rules). Reliance was placed in the decision of Madras High Court in Commr. of Agrl. IT vs. Periakaramalai Tea & Produce Co. Ltd. & Ors. (1972) 84 ITR 643 (Mad). As indicated above, Revenue moved for a reference which has been accepted. In support of reference application, learned counsel for Revenue submitted that what is to be considered as profits of business for the purpose of computing deduction is income liable to tax under the Act. Decision of Madras High Court, as referred above, was in respect of Agrl. IT Act and has no relevance to the case of assessee. Learned counsel for assessee, on the other hand, submitted that as per r. 8(1) of Rules, entire income from sale of tea grown and manufactured by assessee should be computed as if income derived from business and 40 per cent of such income shall be deemed to be income liable to income- tax. Dispute before Tribunal was whether in computing composite income derived from sale of tea grown and manufactured by assessee, allowance under s. 80HHC should be first computed and thereafter, income so computed is to be apportioned under r. 8 of the Rules. Though the decision of Madras High Court was in respect of deduction under s. 80(1), decision had full application to deduction under s. 80HHC, held the Tribunal. For resolution of the dispute between the parties, it is necessary to take note of s. 80HHC and r. 8 so far as relevant. Sec. 80HHC of the Act reads thus : “(1) Where an assessee, being an Indian company or a person (other than a company) resident in India, is engaged in the business of export out of India of any goods or merchandise towhich this section applies, there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction equal to the aggregate of : (a) four per cent of the net foreign exchange realisation; and (b) fifty per cent of so much of the profits derived by the assessee from the export of such goods or merchandise as exceeds the amount referred to in cl. (a): Provided that the deduction under this sub-section shall not exceed the profits derived by the assessee from the export of such goods or merchandise : Provided further that an amount equal to the amount of the deduction claimed under this subsection is debited to the P&L a/c of the previous year in respect of which the deduction is to be allowed and credited to a reserve account to be utilised for the purposes of the business of assessee. xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx (3) For the purposes of sub-s. (1), profits derived from the export of goods or merchandise out of India shall be, (a) in a case where the business carried on by the assessee consists exclusively of the export out of India of the goods or merchandise to which this section applies, the profits of the business as computed under the head ‘profits and gains of business or profession’; (b) in a case where the business carried on by the assessee does not consist exclusively of the export out of India of the goods or merchandise to which this section applies, the amount which bears to the profits of the business (as computed under the head ‘Profits and gains of business or profession’) the same proportion as the export turnover bears to the total turnover of the business carried on by the assessee”. Rule 8 of rules reads as follows : “8. Income from the manufacture of tea.—(1) Income derived from the sale of tea grown and manufactured by the seller in India shall be computed as if it were income derived from business, and forty per cent of such income shall be deemed to be income liable to tax. (2) In computing such income an allowance shall be made in respect of the cost of planting bushes in replacement of bushes that have died or become permanently useless in an area already planted, if such area has not previously been abandoned, and for the purpose of determining such cost, no deduction shall be made in respect of the amount of any subsidy which, under the provisions of cl. (30) of s. 10, is not includible in the total income.”

Rule 8 refers to computation of income derived from sale of tea grown and manufactured by seller in India as if it were income derived from business and 40 per cent of such income is to be deemed to be income liable to tax. In other words, there has to be computation of income in accordance with provisions of the Act. As a necessary corollary, deduction is allowable including what is covered under Chapter VI-A (Deductions to be made in computing total income). It is to be noted that Chapter VI-A was inserted by Finance Act, 1965 w.e.f. 1st April, 1965. Sec. 80HHC is a part of Chapter VI-A. We do not find any substance in the plea of learned counsel for Revenue that only deductions contained in Chapter IV of the Act, more particularly those contained in ss. 30 to 43D are to be reckoned for purpose of computation. Deduction from income for the purpose of computing taxability of income has to be done not only taking into account provisions of ss. 30 to 43D, but also taking into consideration deductions permissible under Chapter VI-A of the Act. As stated above, s. 80HHC is part of Chapter VI-A. Sec. 80HHC refers to computation of total income of assessee. Rule 8 creates a legal fiction. 40 per cent tax deemed to be income liable to tax under r. 8 is chargeable income. Inevitable conclusion, therefore, is before applying the 40 per cent rule, income should be first computed in accordance with provisions of the Act i.e., after allowing deductions including those encompassed by Chapter VI-A of the Act. In interpreting the provisions, Court has to ascertain for what purpose fiction is created and after ascertaining this, it has to assume all those facts and consequences which are incidental or inevitable corollaries for giving effect to such fiction. When a legal fiction is created, for what purpose, one is led to ask at once, is it so created ?(see State of T.C. vs. Shanmugha Vilas Cashewnut Factory : AIR 1953 SC 333). After ascertaining the purpose, full effect must be given to the statutory fiction and it should be carried to its logical conclusion and to that end, it would be proper and even necessary to assume all those facts on which alone the fiction can operate [see CIT vs. S. Teja Singh (1959) 35 ITR 408 (SC) : TC 68R.315 : AIR 1959 SC 352].

5. In an oft-quoted passage, Lord Asquith stated: “If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the consequence and incidents which, if the putative state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it. The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs; it does not say that having done so, you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs” [see East End Dwelling Co. Ltd. vs. Finsbury Borough Council (1951) 2 All ER 587 (HL)]. It is well settled that a legal fiction is to be limited to purposes for which is was created and should not be extended beyond the language of the section by which it is created. It is to be noted that r. 8 deals with two types of income, i.e. agricultural income and non- agricultural income at the ratio of 60:40 of total income. After computing the total income, same has to be bifurcated in the above manner. Therefore, the total income would necessarily mean the net income and not gross income. Before the charging section is given effect, taxable income must accrue and while computing the total income, all expenditure and other deductions and allowances must be taken into account before net income is computed. Great emphasis is laid by learned counsel for Revenue on CIT vs. R.M. Chidambaran Pillai 1977 CTR (SC) 71 : (1977) 106 ITR 292 (SC) : TC 33R.240. The decision has no application to facts of the present case, as the same related to method of taxing salary paid to a partner by a firm which grows and sells tea. With reference to r. 24 of Indian IT Rules, 1922, it was held that exemption was to be granted to the extent of 60 per cent thereof representing agricultural income and tax was to be levied only for 40 per cent. The manner of computation was not in issue, which is involved in the case at hand. Question is answered in the affirmative, in favour of assessee and against the Revenue.

[Citation : 246 ITR 278]