The
Commonwealth Trust Ltd., Calicut, Kerala Vs. The Commissioner of
Income Tax, Kerala Ii, Ernakulam [1997] INSC 628 (30 July 1997)
S. C.
AGRAWAL, D. P. WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
WITH
CIVIL
APPEAL (N.T.) NO. 2979 OF 1982
D.P.
Wadhwa, J.
These
two appeals by certificate under Section 261 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for
short `the Act') are directed against the judgment dated November 27, 1981 of the Kerala High Court. The
judgment is now reported in (1982) 135 ITR 19 (F.B.). The following two
questions were decided by the High Court:
"1.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is
right in law in deleting Rs.1,260/- towards house rent under Section 40 (a)(v)
of the Income-tax Act, 1961?
2.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was
justified in holding that the assessee did not have the right of substituting
the market value as on 1.1.54 in respect of depreciable assets? While the first
question was referred at the instance of the revenue, the second question was
at the instance of the assessee. Both the question were, however, answered by
the High Court in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
The
impugned judgment in so far as it answers the first question has been overruled
by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and others vs. Mafatlal Gangabhai & Co.
(P)
Ltd. and other (1996) 7 SCC 569. Accordingly the answer to this question has to
be given in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
It is
the second question in which arguments were addressed before us. While the
revenue gets support from the decisions of the High Courts of Gujarat, Allahabad and Calcutta for upholding the impugned judgment, the assessee gets
support from the decision of the Bombay High Court.
Gujarat,
Allahabad and Calcutta decisions are reported respectively in Rajnagar Vaktapur
Ginning, Pressing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 264, CIT vs.
Upper Doab Sugar Mills (1979) 116 ITR 240 and India Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT
(1982) 136 ITR 597. Bombay decision is reported in Goculdas
Dossa and Co. and other vs. J.P. Shah and other (1995) 211 ITR 706.
To
understand rival contentions we may briefly advert to the facts of the case.
The
assessment year is 1971-72, the accounting year being 1970-71. The assessee, a
limited company, was possessed of considerable properties at Calicut and Mangalore. It owned these
properties right from 1920 onwards. The assessee had been allowed in the
previous year.
During
the period relevant to the assessment year 1971-72 the assesee sold some of
these properties on which it had already claimed depreciation. The Calicut
Weaving Factory was sold for Rs. 20,000/-, its original value being Rs.
10,000/-.
The assessee has incurred an additional expenditure of Rs. 979/- on this
property. As noted above depreciation has been allowed on the value of the
property in the earlier years. In computing the capital gains the assessee
showed a capital loss of Rs. 78/- on the sale of this property. This the
assessee did on revaluing the property as on January 1, 1954. The assessee sold its Mangalore building for Rs.
2,25,000/-. Its original cost as adjusted came to Rs. 76,680/-. IN respect of
these buildings also depreciation has been claimed and allowed in the previous
years. Here again the assessee revalued the building as on January 1, 1954 and
on that basis showed the capital gains at Rs. 44, 713/-. The stand taken by the
assessee was that it had the option under Section 55(2) (i) of the Act either
to adopt the written down value of the building or the value of the building as
on January 1, 1954 and it has chosen the latter. the Income Tax Officer,
however, took the view that the assessee did not have the right to substitute
the value as on January 1, 1954 because the assets were depreciable assets to
which Section 50(1) applied which was a special provision in respect of
depreciable assets and the provision as contained in Section 55(2)(i) allowing
option which was general provision was not applicable in the case of
depreciable assets. The Income Tax Officer, therefore, substituted the original
value an arrived at a capital gain of Rs. 9021/- in the case of Calicut property and Rs. 1,46,320/- in the
case of Mangalore buildings. On appeal filed by the assessee the Appellate
Assistant Commissioner agreed with the Income Tax Officer.
He was
also of the view that the assessee did not have the right to substitute value
as on January 1, 1954 in respect of depreciable assets.
The assessee then went to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate
Tribunal dismissed the appeal but at the instance of the assessee referred the
aforesaid second question for the decision of the High Court. The High Court
agreed with the view of the Appellate Tribunal and decided the question in
affirmative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. On certificate
granted by the High Court under Section 261 of the Act this appeal has come
before us.
Before
we consider the judgments of the High Courts it will be appropriate to set out
the relevant provisions of law. These would be Section 32(1)(iii), 41(2) and
43(6) in Part D and Section 45, 48, 49, 50 and 55 in Part E under Chapter IV
relating to computation of total income :
"32.
Depreciation.- (1) in respect of depreciation of building machinery, plant or
furniture owned by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business or
profession, the following deductions shall, subject to the provisions of
Section 34, be allowed - (iii) in the case of any building, machinery, plant or
furniture which is sold, discarded, demolished or destroyed in the previous
year (other than the previous year in which it is first brought into use), the
amount by which the moneys payable in respect of such building, machinery,
plant or furniture, together with the amount of scrap value, if any, fall short
of the written down value thereof:
41(2)
Where any building, machinery plant or furniture which is owned by the assessee
and which was or has been used for the purpose of business or profession is
sold, discarded, demolished or destroyed and the money payable in respect of
such building, machinery, plant or furniture, as the case may be, together with
the amount of scrap value, if any, exceed the written down value, so much of
the excess as does not exceed the difference between the actual cost and the
written down value shall be chargeable to income-tax as income of the business
or profession of the previous year in which the moneys payable for the
building, machinery, plant or furniture became due:
Provided
that where the building sold, discarded, demolished or destroyed is a building
to which Explanation 5 to Section 43 applies, and the moneys payable in respect
of such building, together with amount of scrap value, if any, exceed the
actual cost as determined under the Explanation, so much of the excess as does
not exceed the difference between the actual cost so determined and the written
down value shall be chargeable to income-tax as income of the business or
profession of such previous year.
Explanation.-
Where the moneys payable in respect of the building, machinery, plant or
furniture referred to in this sub-section become due in a previous year in
which the business or profession for the purpose of which the building,
machinery, plant or furniture was being used is no longer in existence, the
provisions of this sub-section shall apply as if the business or profession is
in existence in that previous year." 43 (6) "written down value"
means- (a) in the case of assets, acquired in the previous year, the actual
cost to the assessee;
(b) in
the case of assets acquired before the previous year, the actual cost to the
assessee less all depreciation actually allowed to him under this Act, or under
the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922), or any Act repealed by that Act,
or under any executive orders issued when the Indian Income-tax Act, 1886 (II
of 1886), was in force:
Provided
that in determining the written down value in respect of building, machinery or
plant for the purposes of clause (ii) of sub- section (1) of section 32,
"depreciation actually allowed" shall not included depreciation
allowed under sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (vi) of sub- section (2)
of section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922), where such
depreciation was not deductible in determining the written down value for the
purposes of the said clause (vi).
Explanation
1..................................
Explanation
2...................
...............
Explanation
2A........ ............
....
.........
Explanation
3..................................
"45.
Capital gains. - (1) Any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a
capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as other wise provided
in sections 53, 54 and 54B, be chargeable to income-tax under the head
"Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous
year in which the transfer took place.
48.
Mode of computation and deductions.- The income chargeable under the head
"Capital gains" shall be computed by deducting from the full value of
the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the
capital asset of following amounts, namely :- (i) expenditure incurred wholly
and exclusively in connection with such transfer :
(ii)
the cost of acquisition of the capital asset and the cost of any improvement
thereto.
49.
Cost with reference to certain modes of acquisition. (1) Where the capital
asset became the property of the assessee- (i) on any ********************
assets on the total or partial partition of a Hindu undivided family;
(ii)
under a gift or will;
(iii)
(a) by succession, inheritance or devolution, or (b) on any distribution of
assets on the dissolution of a firm, body of individuals or other association
of person, or (c) on any distribution of assets on the liquidation of a
company, or (d) under a transfer to a revocable or an irrevocable trust, or (e)
under any such transfer as is referred to in clause (iv) or clause (v) or
clause (vi) of Section 47, the cost of acquisition of the asset shall be deemed
to be the cost for which the previous owner of the property acquired it, as
increased by the cost of any improvement of the assets incurred or borne by the
previous owner or the assessee, as the case may be.
Explanation.-
In this sub-section the expression "previous owner of the property"
in relation to any capital asset owned by an assessee means the last previous
owner of the capital asset who acquired it by a mode of acquisition other than
that referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of this sub-section.
(2) x
x x x
50.
Special provision for computing cost of acquisition in the case of depreciable
assets. - where the capital asset is an asset in respect of which a deduction
on account of depreciation has been obtained by the assessee in any previous
year either under this Act or under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (XI of
1922), or any Act repealed by that Act, or under executive orders issued when
the Indian Income-tax Act, 1886 (II of 1886), was in force, the provisions of
Section 48 and 49 shall be subject to the following modifications:- (1) The
written down value, as defined in clause (6) of Section 43, of the asset, as
adjusted, shall be taken as the cost of acquisition of the asset.
(2)
Where under any provision of Section 49, read with sub- section (2) of Section
55, the fair market-value of the asset on the 1st day of January, 1954, is to
be taken into account at the option of the assessee, then, the cost of
acquisition of the asset shall, at the option of the assessee, be the fair
market- value of the asset on the said date, as reduced by the amount of
depreciation, if any, allowed to the assessee after the said date, and as
adjusted.
55.
Meaning of "adjusted", "cost of improvement" and "cost
of acquisition". (1) For the purposes of sections 48, 49 and 50, - (a)
"adjusted", in relation to written down value or fair market value,
means diminished by any loss deducted or increased by the profit assessed,
under the provisions of clause (iii) of sub-section (1), or clause (ii) of
sub-section (1A), of section 32 or sub-section (2) or sub-section (2A) of
section 41, as the case may be, the computation for this purpose being made
with reference to the period commencing from the 1st day of January, 1954, in
cases to which clause (2) of section 50 applies;
(b)
"cost of any improvement", in relation to capital assets, - (i) where
the capital asset became the property of the previous owner or the assessee
before the 1st day of January, 1954, and the fair market value of the asset on
that day is taken as the cost of acquisition at the option of the assessee,
means all expenditure of a capital nature incurred in making any additions or
alternations to the capital asset on or after the said date by the previous
owner or the assessee, and (ii) in any other case, means all expenditure of a
capital nature incurred in making any additions or alterations to the capital
asset by the assessee after it became his property, and, where the capital
asset became the property of the assessee by any of the modes specified in
sub-section (1) of section 49, by the previous owner, but does not include any
expenditure which is deductible in computing the income chargeable under the
head "interest on securities", "Income from house
property", "Profits and gains of business or profession", or
"Income from other sources", and the expression
"improvement" shall be construed accordingly.
(2)
For the purposes of Section 48 and 49, "cost of acquisition", in
relation to a capital asset, - (i) where the capital asset became the property
of the assessee before the 1st day of January, 1954, means the cost of
acquisition of the asset to the assessee or the fair market value of the asset
on the 1st day of January, 1954, at the option of the assessee;
(ii)
where the capital asset became the property of the assessee by any of the modes
specified in sub-section (1) of section 49, and the capital asset became the
property of the previous owner before the 1st day of January, 1954, means the
cost of the capital asset to the previous owner or the fair market value of the
asset on the 1st day of January, 1954, at the option of the assessee;
(iii)
where the capital asset became the property of the assessee on the distribution
of the capital assets of a company on its liquidation and the assessee has been
assessed to income-tax under the head "Capital gains" in respect of
that asset under section 46, means the fair market value of the asset on the
date of distribution;
(iv) x
x x (v) where the capital asset, being a share or a stock of a company, became
the property of the assessee on- (a) the consolidation and division of all or
any of the share capital of the company into shares of larger amount than its
existing shares, (b) the conversion of any shares of the company into stock.
(c)
the reconversion of any stock of the company into shares, (d) the sub-division
of any of the share of the company into shares of smaller amount, or (e) the
conversion of one kind of shares of the company into another kind, means the
cost of acquisition of the asset calculation, with reference to the cost of
acquisition of the shares, or stock from which such asset is derived.
(3)
Where the cost for which the previous owner acquired the property cannot be
ascertained, the cost of acquisition to the previous owner means the fair
market value on the date on which the capital asset become the property of the
previous owner." (Section 32(1-A)(ii) and Section 41(2-A) would not be
relevant for our purposes and therefore not reproduced).
We may
now consider the judgments of the High Courts referred to during the course of
arguments. In R.V. Ginning, Pressing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. C.I.T. (1975) 99
ITR 264 (Gujarat), the assessee company was under
liquidation. In the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1968-69
some of the assets being building and machinery were sold.
These
assets were purchased before January 1, 1954.
The assessee had obtained depreciation on the said assets. The assessee claimed
that it should be permitted to substitute the market valuation of the machinery
and building as on January
1, 1954 as the cost of
acquisition for purposes of computation of capital gains. This was rejected by
the revenue authorities. The question before the High Court was whether the
assessee was entitled to substitute the value as on January 1, 1954, as the cost of acquisition of the building and machinery.
The High Court answered the question in negative in favour of the revenue and
against the assessee by holding as under:
"We
have set out the relevant section 48, 49 and 50. On the plain reading of
section 50, we think that it is only those assessees who acquired depreciable
assets in any one of the modes prescribed under section 49 that have the
benefit of option to select either the fair market value of the assets on January 1, 1954, or the cost of acquisition by the
previous owner.
It is
an admitted position that the applicant-company is not an assessee acquiring
depreciable assets in any of the modes mentioned in section 49 and clearly,
therefore, this case falls within section 50(1) and, therefore, in case of the
applicant-company for purposes of computation of capital gains tax adjusted
written down value as defined in clause (6) of section 43 of the Act would be
the cost of acquisition of the assets." In CIT vs. Upper Doab Sugar Mills (1979)
116 ITR 240 (Allahabad) during the accounting period
relevant to assessment year 1964-65 the assessee sold machinery. The claim of
the assessee that it was entitled to exercise the option of treating the fair
market value as cost of acquisition was rejected by the ITO. In appeal,
however, the assessee's plea. He held that Section 50(2) read with Section
55(2) (ii) of the Act was applicable and these sections gave an option to the
assessee to compute capital gains by adopting fair market value of the assets as
on January 1, 1954. The revenue went up in appeal to
the Appellate Tribunal which upheld the view of the AAC and dismissed the
appeal. At the instance of the revenue the Appellate Tribunal referred the
question to the Allahabad High Court as to whether in determining the capital
gains arising to the assessee, provisions of Section 50(2) and Section
55(2)(ii) were applicable. The court answered the question in the negative in
favour of the department and against the assessee. It observed as under:
"The
language used makes it clear that s.50 of the I.T. Act. 1961, applies to cases
of depreciable assets, and that the provisions thereof are mandatory. It will
prevail over s.55(2) firstly because it expressly modifies the provisions of
s.48, and, in the next place, it is a special provision for depreciable assets.
S.55,
on the other hand, is only a definition section. The definition of "cost
of acquisition" given by its sub-s.(2) is only for purposes of ss.48 and
49. S.55(2) does not apply to s.50 and cannot prevail over it. In other words,
the cost of acquisition of a depreciable asset is bound to be computed in
accordance with s.50, even though the capital asset may also on facts be within
the purview of sub-sec.
(20 of
s.55. If the case of a depreciable assets owned by the assessee from before 1st
January, 1954, were to be governed by s.55(2) then there was no occasion or
need to enact sub-s.(2) of s.50.
Under
sub-s.(2) a special provision has been made for capital assets which are
covered by s.49 as well as s.55(2), namely, assets indirectly acquired and
which were owned by the previous owner from before 1st January, which are owned
by the assessee as the original owner sub-s.(1) of s.50 applies, even though
the asset may have been owned by the assessee from before 1st January, 1954. In
such a case s.50(1) does not contemplate that the assessee can treat the fair
market value of the asset as on 1st January, 1954, as the cost of acquisition. The written down value of the
asset has to be taken as the cost of acquisition." In Prime Product Pvt.
Ltd. Kanpur vs. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 473 (Allahabad), the High Court took the same view as in Upper Doab Sugar Mills case.
In
India Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1982) 136 ITR 597 (Calcutta), the question before
the court was whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that for the
computation of the profits 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 1962-63, it was not entitled to seek the aid of Section
55(2)(i) of the Act and opt for and substitute their fair market value as on
1st January, 1954, as the cost of acquisition thereof in place of their written
down value? The Court answered the question in the affirmative and in favour of
the revenue. The court observed that Section 48 dealt with the general mode of
the computation and deduction and that heading of Section 50 was significant
which provides for "Special provision for computing cost acquisition in
the case of depreciable assets". The court then further observed as under:
"If
a special mode is provided then the general meaning given by sub- s.(2) of s.55
could not apply.
Furthermore,
this well-settled canon of construction that the definition in a section
provided in a certain provision of an Act must be limited to the purpose
indicated in that sub-section and it could not extended by construction unless
there is a clear implication to that effect.
In
this case, it is significant that sub-s.(2) of s.55 does not mention that for
the purpose of "this chapter" or "this group of sections"
the cost of acquisition in relation to the capital assets should be as
indicated in the different clauses as indicated in sub-s.(2) of s.55 but limits
the purposes of the different clause only to ss.48 and 49 and thereby excluding
the operation of "the special provision of computing cost of acquisition
of depreciable assets". Where there is a special provision dealing with a
particular provision, the special provision must prevail." In coming to
this conclusion, Calcutta High Court followed the decisions of the Allahabad and Gujarat High Courts.
The
Kerala High Court Court (F.B) in the judgment (1982) 135 ITR 19 which is in the
appeal before us also followed two decisions of the Allahabad High Court
mentioned above. The court said that though Section 55(2) gave an option to an
assessee to choose one of the two values as the cost of acquisition for the
purpose of Section 48, in a case to which Section 50 applied, Section 48 had to
be read subject to the modification and, consequently, the option would not be
available and that the cost of acquisition would have to be taken in such a
case as the written down value as defined in cl.(6) of Section 43. The High
Court in the impugned judgement then observed as under:
"We
are not impressed with the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee
that since the definition of "cost of acquisition" in s.55(2) will
apply for the purpose of s.48 and this is a case to which s.48 would so apply,
s.55(2) must govern despite s.50 of the Act. That would be to render s.50
inoperative. We do not see why we should resort to such a construction. While
the option contemplated under s.55(2) of the Act will be available in every
case where capital gains is determined in accordance with s.48, that would not
be the case where what is applicable is not s.48 as such but s.48 as modified
by s.50. The special provision must necessarily operate in such a case so as to
render the option under s.55(2) unavailable and also to equate the cost of
acquisition in such a case with the written down value as defined in cl.(6) of
s.43." Full Bench of the Bombay High Court has, however, struck a
different note. In Goculdas Dossa and Co. and other s vs. J.P. Shah and others
(1995) 211 ITR 706, the High Court disagreed with the views of Gujarat,
Allahabad, Kerala and Calcutta High Courts and held that the assessee who had
purchased a depreciable asset prior to January 1, 1964 (substituted for 1st
January, 1954 by Act 29 of 1977 with effect from 1.4.78) was entitled to the
option of substituting the fair market value on that date as the cost of
acquisition for computing its capital gains. In the Bombay case the assessee had purchased
land, building, plant and machinery of a factory much prior to January 1, 1964.
The
assessee sold the building, land, plant and machinery in the accounting year
relevant to the assessment year 1981-82.
The
assessee had claimed depreciation on building and machinery year after year. In
the return of income for the relevant assessment year while working out the
long-term capital gains, the assessee substituted the fair market value of
land, building and machinery as on January 1, 1964, as the cost of acquisition by
exercising the option under Section 55(2). The Income-tax Officer held that the
assessee, in view of Section 50, did not have that option since it had acquired
the property voluntarily by purchase and not in the circumstance mentioned in
Section 49. The Income-tax Officer further held that the written down value of
the said depreciable assets as adjusted, along with cost of its improvement
would be the correct price for working out the capital gains and on that basis,
issued a demand notice under Section 156 of the Act. On appeal by the assessee
Commissioner of Income-tax (appeal) upheld the order of the Income-tax Officer.
The assessee filed a second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal but since
there was a challenge to the validity of Section 50 writ petition was filed in
the High Court. The High Court elaborately discussed the relevant provisions of
the Act. It disagreed with the views of the other High Courts that Section 50
was a special provision and would, therefore, prevail over the general
provisions of Section 55(2). The High Court said both the provisions operated
upon different and independent areas and that Section 55(2) was the only source
of option while Section 50(2) was not the source of option. It said Section 50
specified that only Section 48 and 49 were subject to the modification
mentioned therein and that the option given in Section 55(2) was not made
subject to Section 50. The High Court was of the view that it appeared that it
was not brought to the notice of courts that the question of the
purchaser-assessee being entitled to the option or not had to be determined
only on the basis of Section 50(1) read with Section 48 and 55(2) and not
Section 50(2) of the Act. It went as to add:
"No
doubt, the assessee purchasing a depreciable asset and an assessee acquiring it
otherwise can be said to belong to different classes but we are unable to see
what that classification has to do with the object sought to be achieved by the
provision, viz., to prevent the assessment of illusory capital gain on account
of inflationary conditions and decreasing value of money. It would make no
difference whether the capital asset which gave rise to the capital gain has
been acquired by the assessee either by purchased or by gift. The classification
between the depreciable and non-depreciable assets and between these two
classes of assessees have no nexus to the object of enactment.
Contrary
interpretation has the potentiality of making section 50 irrational and,
therefore, violative of article 14 of the Constitution. It is settled legal
position that, there has to be an attempt to save a piece of legislation, if
possible, by reading it down so as to make it constitutional. No doubt,
wordings employed in section 50(2) are clumsy. One way of reading its, is to
disregard the reference to section 49 because the right to substitute; the fair
market value as the cost of acquisition springs from section 55(2) and not
section
49.
Such exercise of reading down and modifying the provisions has been undertaken
in some cases like Manubhai A. Sheth v. N.D. Nirgudkar (1981) 128 ITR 87 (Bom)
and A.
Sanyasi
Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh [1989] 178 ITR 31 (AP). It seems necessary
to do so in this case also".
The
basic question that involves in the present case is if an assessee, who has
acquired capital asset before January 1, 1954 otherwise than by any of the
modes mentioned in Section 49 and sold it after January 1, 1954 is also
entitled to have the quantum of taxable capital gains computed in the manner
provided by clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 55 of the Act? High Courts
of Gujarat, Allahabad, Calcutta and Kerala have, however, held that this could
not be so as Section 50(1) being a special provision for computing cost of
acquisition in the case of depreciable assets it would override the general
provisions of Section 55(2) which according to these High Courts would be
applicable to the cases of non-depreciable assets or depreciable assets where
depreciation had not been claimed.
Bombay
High Court on the other hand has not followed this line of reasoning.
In the
present case it is not disputed that it is Section 48 which is applicable and
not Section 49. Under Section 48 to compute the income chargeable under the
head "Capital gains", the value consideration received on transfer of
the capital asset is to be deducted by the expenditure incurred on the transfer
and the cost of acquisition of the capital asset and the cost of any
improvement thereon. The expenditure that might have been incurred on the
transfer of capital asset and the cost of any improvement thereon are not the
subject of any controversy in the case before us. Section 49 is not applicable
as the capital asset was not acquired by any of the modes mentioned in that
section. Coming to Section 50 it states, in so far as it relevant, that when
depreciation has been obtained on the capital asset, the provision of Section
48 is subject to the modification that "the written down value, as defined
in clause (6) of Section 43 of the asset, as adjusted, shall be taken as the
cost of acquisition of the asset". It is the expression "as
adjusted" of which meaning has been given in section 55(1)(a) and it is to
be applied while considering the applicability of Section 50(1). Under section
55(1)(a) the expression "adjusted" in relation to written down value
of fair market value, means diminished by the loss deducted or increased by any
profit assessed under the provisions of clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of
Section 32 or sub-section (2) of Section 41, as the case may be, and in case to
which clause (2) of Section 50 applies the computation for this purpose being
made with reference to the period commencing from the 1st day of January, 1954.
Significantly the words "as adjusted" have been used in order to
avoid the possibility of there been used in order to avoid the possibility of
there being a double tax where the question of any terminal (balancing)
allowance under Section 32 or balancing charge under Section 41 is involved.
Therefore in its application of the expressions "as adjusted" the
written down value as ascertained according to sub-section (6) of Section 43
shall be adjusted with either subtraction of the terminal (balancing) allowance
or with addition of the amount of balancing charge, if any, allowed out of or
taken into the business income. Where the capital asset is sold for less than
the written down value the difference or deficiency between the sale price and
the written down value is allowed as a deduction in computation of the business
profits (Section 32(1)(iii)) which is termed as "balancing (or terminal)
allowance" and where the asset is sold for more than the written down
values, the sale price being less than the cost, the excess realised over the
written down value is charred as business profits (Section 41(2)) and is termed
as "balancing charge". Part D of Chapter IV of the Act does not
provide for the circumstance when the depreciated asset has been sold for a
price which is more than the cost. This considered under the provisions of Part
E of Chapter IV dealing under the provisions of Part E of Chapter IV dealing
with capital gains and more particularly Section 50 falling under Part E. While
now sub-section (1) of Section 55 which uses the expressions
"adjusted" and "cost of improvement" applies for the
purposes of Section 48, 49 and 50, sub- section (2) of Section 55 which uses
the expression "cost of acquisition" is for the purpose of Section 48
and 49.
In
commercial parlance computation of capital gain would mean the actual gains
measured by the difference between the sale price and the cost of acquisition.
It is the "cost of acquisition" that is required to be determined
under the provisions of Section 48, 49, 50 and 55. Both under Section 48 and 49
cost of acquisition will have to be determined and adjusted as provided in
Section 50 and 55.
Section
55(2) gives an option to both kinds of assessees, that is, those who have
purchased the capital asset as well as those who have acquired it by any of the
mode mentioned in Section 49 to substitute of the actual cost of acquisition
the fair market value of the asset as on January 1, 1954. Section 55(2),
however, makes it clear that the option is available only for the purposes of
Section 48 and 49 and it is not available for a case falling under Section
50.
Though the provisions of Section 55(2) would be available to every kind of
capital asset whether the same has enjoyed the depreciation allowance or not
whether in the hands of the assessee or the previous owner, the assessee in whose
case depreciation allowance has been availed of before the transfer of the
capital asset the meaning of "cost of acquisition" as stated in
Section 48 and 49 would appear to have been modified in the manner stated in
Section 50. Thus, where the assessee has not availed of depreciation allowance
in respect of the capital asset Section 50 has no application. In this view of
the matter there does not appear to be any conflict between the provisions of
Section 50 and 55(2). Section 55(2) would be applicable to all assets
depreciable or non-depreciable for the purposes of arriving at the cost of
acquisition under Section 48 and 49 but Section 50 carves out a category of
those capital assets which been subjected to grant of depreciation allowance
and this section 50 therefore provides a special method for determining the
cost of acquisition in such cases. Provision of Section 55(2) is not subject to
the provision of Section
50.
These are the provisions of Section 50(2) which only are subject to the
provisions of Sections 55(2), 48 and 49. Now to sections 48 and 49 the
provision of Section 55(2) would apply as modified by those of Section 50.
Section 50 is applicable where the assessee has obtained deduction on account
of depreciation in respect of the capital asset in question and in that case
Section 55(1) also come into operation view of the expression
"adjusted" which is defined therein in clause (a) of Section 55(1).
The expression "adjusted" is for the proposes of Section 48, 49 and
50. For the purpose of applying Section 55(2), Section 48 and 49 will have to
applied as modified by Section 50. It follows, therefore, where the capital
asset purchased by the assessee is a depreciable or non depreciable asset, the
assessee will have the option for substituting for its actual cost of
acquisition its fair market value as on 1.1.54 but where it is a depreciable
asset and the assessee has enjoyed depreciable allowance his cost of
acquisition shall have to be determined as provided in Section 50.
Viewed
from this angle Section 50(1) has no dependence on the provisions of Section
55(2). There is no mention of "fair market value" in Section 50(1)
and besides that the adjustments stated there are with reference to the written
down value only which has nothing to do with the fair market value. We
conclude, therefore, that in the present case where the capital asset is
depreciable and the assessee has availed of deduction on account of
depreciation the cost of acquisition shall have to be determined in term of the
provision of Section 50 read with Section 48. All the High Courts including
Bombay High Court are of the view that Section 50(2) does not apply to any
capital asset other than that which has been acquired by any of the modes
mentioned in Section 49. It does not apply to the case of a person who has
himself purchased the asset which has enjoyed the depreciation allowance. To us
is appears Section 50 is in absolute terms specially providing for fixing the
cost of acquisition in the case of depreciable asset only. It is difficult to
accept the view of the Bombay High Court when it brings into operation Article
14 of the Constitution and the judgment proceeds more on the basis of equitable
consideration than the clear provision of law. Bombay High Court has even read
down and modified the provisions, which would appear to be rather unnecessary.
We uphold the views of the Gujarat, Allahabad and Calcutta High Courts and of
the Kerala High Court in the impugned judgment. The impugned of the High court
whereby question No.2 has been answered in favour of the revenue is, therefore,
upheld and the appeal in so far as it relates to question No.2 is accordingly
dismissed.
We may
also note that since the relevant provisions have been amended with effect from
April 1, 1988, the controversy of the like the one raised in the present
proceeding does no longer survive.
There
will be no order as to costs.
Back
