# COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALCUTTA v. JAIPURIA CHINA CLAY MINES (P) LTD

- **Citation:** [1966] 2 S.C.R. 449
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1965-11-01
- **Bench:** K. SUBBA RAo, J. C. Shah, S. M. Sikri
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/commissioner-of-income-tax-calcutta-v-jaipuria-china-clay-mines-p-ltd-3591
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Income Tax Act 1922-s. 10(2) (vi), proviso (b)-Unahsorbed depreciation for previous years~Whether can be set off against
profits
under other heads than those of the business-.1'. 24(2) Effect of.
The Income Tax Officer, after deducting depreciation for the year and
an amount in respect of losses, assessed the income of the assessee for
1952-53 as nil.
He then computed the dividend income at Rs. 2,01,130
and determined the total income at this figure and levied tax on it. The
assessee had in its favour unabsorbed depreciation relating to earlier year
aggregating to Rs. 76,857 and contended that this amount should be deducted from the dividend income; but the Income Tax
Officer rejected
!hi,, contention and, in appeal, the Appellant Assistant Commissioner as
well as the Tribunal upheld his view. The High Court, however, upon a
reference. decided the issue in favour of the assessee.
In the appeal to this
Court, it was
also
contended,
inter alia,
on behalf of the revenue that depreciation, although a permis·sible allowance under s. 10{2) of the Act, served to compensate an assessee for the
capital Joss suff~red by him by way of depreciation of his assets and is a
charge on the profits of a business; and that
therefore the expression
"loss of profits and gains" in s. 24( 1) did not include any deficiency resulting from depreciation and could not be included in the amount which·
could be set off against income p·rofits or gains under other heads such·
as income from property or dividends.
HELD : The assessee Was entitled to have the
unabsorbed
depreciatit>n of past years set off against income from sources other than the·
business and therefore against the dividends. [450 B; 456 DJ
Case law reviewed.
F
Civ1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : C. A. No. 307 of 1964.
G
H
Appeal from the Judgement and Order dated 6th February
1962 of the Calcutta High Court in Income Tax Reference No. 72
of 1957.
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, R. Ganapathy Iyer, R.H. Dhebar and
R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
K. N. Rajagopal Sastri and D. N. Mukherjee, for the respondent .

## Text

t
•
A
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALCUTTA
B
c
D
E
v.
JAIPURIA CHINA CLAY MINES (P) LTD.
November 1, 1965
[K. SUBBA RAo, J. C. SHAH AND S. M. SIKRI, JJ.]
Income Tax Act 1922-s. 10(2) (vi), proviso (b)-Unahsorbed depreciation for previous years~Whether can be set off against
profits
under other heads than those of the business-.1'. 24(2) Effect of.
The Income Tax Officer, after deducting depreciation for the year and
an amount in respect of losses, assessed the income of the assessee for
1952-53 as nil.
He then computed the dividend income at Rs. 2,01,130
and determined the total income at this figure and levied tax on it. The
assessee had in its favour unabsorbed depreciation relating to earlier year
aggregating to Rs. 76,857 and contended that this amount should be deducted from the dividend income; but the Income Tax
Officer rejected
!hi,, contention and, in appeal, the Appellant Assistant Commissioner as
well as the Tribunal upheld his view. The High Court, however, upon a
reference. decided the issue in favour of the assessee.
In the appeal to this
Court, it was
also
contended,
inter alia,
on behalf of the revenue that depreciation, although a permis·sible allowance under s. 10{2) of the Act, served to compensate an assessee for the
capital Joss suff~red by him by way of depreciation of his assets and is a
charge on the profits of a business; and that
therefore the expression
"loss of profits and gains" in s. 24( 1) did not include any deficiency resulting from depreciation and could not be included in the amount which·
could be set off against income p·rofits or gains under other heads such·
as income from property or dividends.
HELD : The assessee Was entitled to have the
unabsorbed
depreciatit>n of past years set off against income from sources other than the·
business and therefore against the dividends. [450 B; 456 DJ
Case law reviewed.
F
Civ1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : C. A. No. 307 of 1964.
G
H
Appeal from the Judgement and Order dated 6th February
1962 of the Calcutta High Court in Income Tax Reference No. 72
of 1957.
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, R. Ganapathy Iyer, R.H. Dhebar and
R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
K. N. Rajagopal Sastri and D. N. Mukherjee, for the respondent .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Sikri, J.
This is an appeal by certificate granted by the High
Court of Calcutta against its judgment in a reference made to it
. under s. 66 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter re-
450
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1966] 2 S.C.R.
ferred to as the Act.) The question referred to it by the AppelA
late Tribunal, at the instance of the assessee, was as follows :
"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case,
the unabsorbed depreciation of the past years should be
added to the depreciation of the current year and the
aggregate of the unabsorbed depreciation and the curB
rent year's depreciation
be deducted
from the total
income of the previous year relevant for the assessment
year 1952-53."
The relevant facts and circumstances are as follows :
The
Income Tax Officer assessing the respondent, M/s Jaipuria China
C
Clay Mines (P) Ltd. Calcutta, hereinafter referred to as the assessee,
for the year
1952-53
computed
its total income
at
Rs. 14,041/- before charging depreciation for that year.
From
1hat figure he deducted depreciation for the year amounting to
Rs. 5,360/-, thus computing a profit of Rs. 8,681/-. From this
figure he deducted an equivalent amount, i.e., Rs. 8,681/-, in
D
respect of losses during 1947-48, and he thus worked out the
business income as nil. He then computed the dividend income at
Rs. 2,01,130/- and determined the total income at this figure and
.levied tax on it.
The assessee had in its favour an unabsorbed
depreciation aggregating to Rs. 76,857 /-, and it contended before
~he Income Tax Officer that this sum should be deducted from
E
the income received from dividends, which, if done, would reduce
:the total .income to Rs. 1,32,955/-, but the Income Tax Officer
:refused to accede to this contention.
The Appellant Assistant
(,ommissioner upheld the order of the Income Tax Officer and
the assessee's appeal to the Appellate Tribunal met with the same
fate.
The High Court, however, accepted the contention of the
F
assessee and answered the question referred to it in favour of
the assessee.
The answer to the question depends on the interpretation of
ss. 6, 10 and 24 of the Act.
We are concerned with the law as
it stood on April 1, 1952.
The scheme of the Act is that the
tax is levied in respect of the total income of the previous year
G
of every individual, Hiudu Undivided family, etc., and the total
income consists of income under various heads such as Salaries,
Interest on Securities, Income from Property, Profits and gains of
business, profession or vocation, and Income from other sources
and Capital gains. Various sections deal with how income, profits
and gains under each head have to be computed. Section 10 deals
with the cmnputation of profit and gains of any business carried
H
on by an assessee. Section 10(2) prescribes the allowances which
..
t
C.l.T. V. JAIPURIA MINES L'rD. (Sikri, J.)
451
A have to be deducted before computing the profits and gains; one
of the allowances is 'depreciation', and this is provided under subcL (vi).
Proviso (b) to s. 10(2) (vi).
On this a great deal of
argument has been addressed to us and it reads as follows :
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
"(b) where, in the assessment of the assessee or if the
assessec is a registered firm, in the assessment of its partners, full effect cannot be given to any such allowance
in any year not being a year which ended prior to the
1st day of April, 1939, owing to there being no profits
or gains chargeable for that year, or owing to the profits
or gains chargeable being less than the allowance, then,
subject to the provisions of clause (b) of the proviso to
sub-section (2) of section 24, the allowance or part of
the allowance to which effect has not been given, as the
case may be, shall be added to the amount of the allowance for depreciation for the following year and deemed
to be part of that allowance, or if there is no such allowance for that year, he deemed to be the allowance for that
year, and so on for succeeding years;"
It may be mentioned that the words "in the assessment of the
assessee or if the assessee is a registered firm, in the assessment of
its partners" were inserted by s. 8 of the Indian Income Tax
(Amendment) Act, 1953 (25 of 1953) with effect from April 1,
1952. The next relevant statutory provision is s. 24, which provides for set off of losses in computing aggregate income. Relevant
portions of s. 24 are in the following terms :
"24(1) Where any assessee sustains a loss of profits
or gains in any year under any of the heads mentioned
in section 6, he shall be entitled to have the amount of
the loss set off against his income, profits or gains under
any other head in that year ..... .
Provided that. .....
Provided further that when the assessee is an unregistered firm which has not been assessed under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (5) of section 23, in
the manner applicable to a registered firm, any such loss
shall be set off only against the income, profits and gains
of the firm and not against the income, profits and gains
of any of the partners of the firm; and where the assessee
is a registered firm, any loss which cannot be set off .
against other income, profits and gains of the firm shall
be apportioned between the partners of the firm and they
452
SUPREME
COURT
REPORTS
[1966] 2 S.C.R.
alone shall be entitled to have the amount of the loss set
A
off under this section.
(2) Where any assessee sustains loss of profits or gains
in any year, being a previous year not earlier than the
previous year for the assessment for the year ending on
the 31st day of March, 1940, in any business, profession or vocation and the loss cannot be wholly set off
under sub-section (1), so much of the loss as is not so
set off or the whole loss where the assessee had no other
head of income, shall be carried forward to the following year and set off against the profits and gains, if any,
of the assessee from the same business, profession or
vocation for that year; and if it cannot be wholly so set
off, the amount of loss not so set off shall be carried
forward to the following year, and so on; but no loss shall
be so carried forward for more than six years, and a Joos
arising in the previous years for the assessment for the
years ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, the 31st
day of March, 1941, the 31st day of March, 1942, the
31st day of March, 1943, and the 31st day of March,
1944, respectively, shall be carried forward only for one,
two, three, four and five years, respectively :
Provided that-
(a) ..... .
(b) where depreciation allowance is, under clause
(b) of the proviso to clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of
section 10, also to be carried forward, effect shall first be
given to the provisions of this sub-section;
(c) nothing herein contained shall entitle any assessee, being a registered firm, to have carried forward and
set off any loss which has been apportioned between the
partners, under the proviso to sub-section (1), or entitle
any assessee, being a partner in an unregistered firm
which has not been assessed under the provisions of clause
(b) of sub-section (5) of section 23 in the manner applicable to a registered firm, to have carried forward ,and.
set off against his own income any loss sustained by the
firm; .... "
B
c
D
E
F
G
Mr. Sastri, learned counsel for the revenue, urges that depreciation, although a permissible allowance under s. 10(2) of the Act,
H
serves to compensate an assessee for the capital loss suffered by him
by way of depreciation of his assets.
He says that if it had not
•
'
•
t
•
,
C.I.T. V, JAIPURIA MINES LTD. (Sikri, /.)
453
A
been expressly allowed as allowance, it would have been treated
as capital expenditure and would have been excluded. He further
says that depreciation is a charge on the profits of a business.
Bearing these two factors in mind, he urges that the expression
"loss of profits and gains" in s. 24(1) does not include any deficiency resulting from depreciation and, therefore, an assessee is
B not entitled to ask the Department to include the depreciation in
the amount which can be set off against income, profits and gains
under other heads such as income from property or dividends.
Mr. Rajgopala Sastri for the assessee relies on the history of the
legislation and a number of authorities to support the judgment
c
D
of the High Court.
Apart from authority, looking at the Act as it stood on April
1, 1952, it is clear that the underlying idea of the Act is to assess
the total income of an assessee. Prima facie, it would be unfair
to compute the total income of an assessee carrying on business
without pooling the income from business with the income or loss
under other heads. The second consideration which is relevant is
that the Act draws no express distinction between the various allowances mentioned in s. 10 ( 2). They all have to be deducted from
the gross profits and gains of a business. According to commercial principles, depreciation would be shown in the accounts and
the profits and loss account would reflect the depreciation accounted
E for in the accounts. If the profits are not large enough to wipe off
depreciation, the profit and loss account would show a loss.
Therefore, apart from proviso (b) to s. 10(2)(vi), neither the Act
nor commercial principles draw any distinction between the various allowances mentioned in s. I 0(2); the only distinction is that
F
while the other allowances may be outgoings, depreciation is not
an actual outgoing.
Bearing these two considerations in mind, if one looks at the
language of proviso (b) to s. 10(2)(vi); the first question that arises
1s : What is the meaning of the expression "in the assessment of
the assessee or if the assessee is a registered firm, in the assessment
G of the partners, full effect cannot be given to any such allowance in
any year" ? It would be noted that the words used are "in the
assessment of the assessee or the assessment of the partners".
Taking the case of the partners of a registered firm, the assessment must be their individual assessments, i.e. assessments in which
H
the profits from the firm and other sources are pooled together.
The Legislature is clearly assuming that effect can be given to
depreciation allowance in the assessment of a partner; the only
way effect can be given in the assessment of a partner is by setting
454
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1966] 2 S.C.R.
it. off against income, prqfits and gains under other heads.
The
A
learned counsel for the revenue tried to meet this inference by
sμggesting that what the Legislature contemplated was an asse8Sment of those partners who were carrying on other business. But
in our opinion this suggestion is unsound. What would happen
if. a partnership consists of four partners, two carrying on other
business and two carrying on no other business, Mr. Sastri was
R
unable to explain. Now, if this is the inference to be drawn from
these words, it is quite clear that the words "no profits or gains
chargeable for that year" are not confined to profits and gains·
derived from the business whose income is being computed under
s. 10.
It appears that the Legislature accepted the interpretation
placed by various High Courts on the Act as it stood before it was
amended by Act 25 of 1953. In 1930, the Lahore High Court in
Messrs Karam llahi Muhammad Shafi v. The Commissioner of
c
I ni:ome Tax, Delhi ( 1) held' that depreciation on buildings and
machinery can be set off against gains and profits accrued to the n·
owner of those buildings and machinery from other sources such
as. rental from house property during the year in question. In A
Suppan Chettiqr & Co. v. The Commissioner of Income-Tax,,
Madras( 2 ) the Madras High Court held that"where the profits and·
gains of a business are insufficient to cover the full depreciation
allowance under section 10(2) (vi) of the Income-tax Act on the
machinery, plant, etc., used for the purposes of that business, the
excess depreciation can be set off against the profits and gains of
other business or from other sources." In Ballarpur Collieries v.
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Provinces('),
the
Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Nagpur, held that the partners
of the assessee, a registered firm owning collieries, were entitled
to set off depreciation against the other income of the members of
the fim1 under s. 24 of the Income Tax Act. In Laxmichand'
Jaipuria Spinning and Weaving Mills, In re(4 ), the East Punjab·
High Court arrived at the same conclusion. The High Court further held that "the object of proviso (b) to sub-section (2) of
section 24 is only to give preference to ordinary losses incurred
by an assessee in regard to set-off over the loss which comes under
clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (2)(vi) of section 10'.
Where set off is to be given for different kinds of losses other than
those due to depreciation such losses must \le set off first and then
(l) 3 Income Tax Cases 456; I.L.R. 11 Lahore 38,
(2) 4 Income Tax Cases 211; l.L.R. 53 Madras 702
(3) 4 Income Tax Cases 255; A.LR. 1930 Nag. l 83
(4) 18 AJ,R: 91~ ..
E
G
H
•
'
I
'
;
' '
!
(
;
-i
!
•
•
........
•
•
A
B
c
D
C.I.T. V. JAIPURIA MINES LTD. (Sikri, J.)
45s;
the loss due to depreciation." In Ambika Silk Mills Co. Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Income-Tax(') the Bombay High Court understood the effect of proviso (b) to s. 10(2)(vi) and proviso (b)
to s. 24 ( 2) as follows :
"If a business was worked at a loss in any particular
year, the Joss can be set off against any other head under
section 24(1); if the Joss cannot be fully set off then it can
be carried forward to the next year, but then it can be only
set off against the profits of that particular business and
that set-off would be permissible
to the assessee for
a period of six years only. After six years the right to
set-off would come to an end. But in the case of depreciation and to the extent that the Joss was caused by depreciation being not fully absorbed there would be no
limit to the carrying forward of that depreciation, and
that depreciation can be set off at any time so long as the
business showed a profit in the future."
After the amendment, the same view has been taken in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City v. Ravi Industries Ltd.(')
by the Bombay High Court, and in Commissioner of Income-Tax
v. Girdharilal Harivallabhadas Mills Co. Ltd. (") by the Gujarat
High Court. The only contrary view which has been placed before
E us is that of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of IncomeTax Madras v. B. Nagi Reddy(4 ), but we are unable to agree with
the view expressed in the last case. The Madras High Court obser--
ved at p. 196 as follows :
F
G
"In our opinion, the statute leads one to the irresistible conclusion that the depreciation allowance must be
a charge only on the profits. The limit of the charge is
the limit of the profits. The non-existence of profits will
prevent the absorption of the allowance.
There is no
warrant for taking in and absorbing the depreciation allowance in the profit and loss account to work out a loss.
If that were the true position, the provision for carrying
forward the unabsorbed depreciation allowance would be
wholly redundant, if not meaningless, in view of the specific provision for the carrying forward of losses."
The unabsorbed depreciation allowance is carried forwarcf
under proviso (b) to s. 10(2)(vi) and the method of carrying it forH
ward is to add it to the amount of the allowance or depreciation
(I) 22 l.T.R. 58, 65.
(3) 51 l.T.R. 693.
(2) 49 l.T.R. 145.
(4) 51 l.T.R. 178 ..
456
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1966] 2 S.C.R.
iin the following year and deeming it to be part of that allowance;
A
·the effect of deeming it to be part of that allowance is that it falls
in the following year within cl. (vi) and has to be deducted as allow-
:ance. If the Legislature had not enacted proviso (b) to s. 24(2),
the result would have been that depreciation allowance would have
been deducted first out of the profits and gains in preference to any
losses which might have been carried forward under s. 24, but as
B
the losses can be carried forward only for six years under s. 24(2),
the assessee would in certain circumstances have in his books losses
which he would not be able to set off. It seems to us that the
Legislature, in view of this, gave a preference to the deduction of
losses first. But it is wrong to assume that s. 24(2) also deals with
the carrying forward of depreciation. This carry forward having
C
been provided in s. 10(2)(vi) and in a different manner; s. 24(2)
only deals with losses other than the losses due to depreciation.
In conclusion, we agree with the High Court that the question
;referred to it should be answered in favour of the assessee. In the
:result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
D
Appeal dismissed.
l
•
•