# COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA v. PATIALA FLOUR MILLS CO. f?T. LTD., PATIALA · October 6, 19~s· - **Citation:** [1979] 1 S.C.R. 1128 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1979 - **Bench:** P. N. Bhagwati, V. D. Tulzapurkar, R. S. Pathak - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/commissioner-of-income-tax-patiala-v-patiala-flour-mills-co-f-t-ltd-patiala-7563 - **Pages:** 10 ## Headnote lncon1e Tax Act, 1961, Section 80 J-Interpretation of. The Respondent·assessee claimed in its assessment to tax for the assessment year 1970-71 that the amounts of deficiency under Sec. SOJ for the current as \Vell as past assessment years were liable to be adjusted ngainst the profit of Rs. 1,51,011/- earned by its cold storage plant which was a new industrial undertaking to which sub-section ( 4) of Sec. 80J of the Income Tax Act applied. The assessee did not make any profit in the business of cold storage plant during the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, but there was profit in the other businesses and the losses, depreciation allO'wance and development rebate in respect of the cold storage plant were adjusted against the profit from the other businesses in computing the total income of the assessee chargeable to ta.x for those assessment years. The Income Tax Officer and in appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim of the assessee for adjustment. But in further appeal the Tribunal held that since the losses as well as depreciation allowance and development rebate in respect of the cold storage business for the past assessment years were already adjusted against the profit from other businesses, no part of such losses, depreciation allowance or development rebate remained unabsorbed so as to be carried forward and set off against the profit for the assessment year 1970-71 and hence the prQ:fit of Rs. 1,51,011 /· from the cold storage business woo not liable to be reduced by any such set off and the assessee was entitled to claim that from out of such profit there should be deducted, first, the amount of Rs. 83,891/- representing the relevant amount of capital employed during the previous year .and then the amounts of deficiency for the past assessment years. The High Court on a reference, a-t the instance of the Revenue answered the question in favour of the assessee. Dismissing the appeal by special leave the Court, HELD : (I) The proper construction of sub-section (I) of Sec. 80J must, be taken to be that the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking must be computed in accordance with the provisions Of the Act in the same manner as they would be in determining the total income chargeable to tax and it must follow a fortiori that if the tosses, depreciation allowance and development rebate in respect of the new industrial undertaking for the. past assessn1ent years have been fully set off against the profit of the assessee from other business or for the matter of that, against the income of the assessee under any other head by reason of sections 70 and 71 read with sub-section (2) of Sec. 32 and sub-section (2) of Sec. 32A, no part of mch losses, depreciation allowance or development rebate would be liable to be adjusted over again in computing the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking for applying the provision contained in sub-sectiott (I) of Sec. 80J. The same mode of comput~tion must prevail also in applying the provision containea in .. C.I.T. V. PATIALA FLOUR MILLS (Bhagwati, J.) 1129 sub-section (3) of sec. 801, because that sub-section provide.;; for setting off A the ca-rried-forward amount of deficiency· of the past assessment years against "the profits and gains referred to in sub-section 1" or Sec. 801, as computed. after allowing inter alia the deduction admissible under sub-section and, therefore, if, for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Sec. 801, the profits or gainJ of the new industrial undertaking are to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and no part of the losses, depreciation allowa·nce or development rebate for the past assessment years which has been fully set off against B the prdfit from other businesses or income under any other head is liable to be adjusted over agian in computing the profits or gains of the ilCW industrial undertaking, no such adjustment would equally be permissible in applying the provision contain ## Text A B c D E F G H 1128 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA v. PATIALA FLOUR MILLS CO. f?T. LTD., PATIALA · October 6, 19~s· [P. N. BHAGWATI, V. D. TULZAPURKAR AND R. S. PATHAK; JJ.] lncon1e Tax Act, 1961, Section 80 J-Interpretation of. The Respondent·assessee claimed in its assessment to tax for the assessment year 1970-71 that the amounts of deficiency under Sec. SOJ for the current as \Vell as past assessment years were liable to be adjusted ngainst the profit of Rs. 1,51,011/- earned by its cold storage plant which was a new industrial undertaking to which sub-section ( 4) of Sec. 80J of the Income Tax Act applied. The assessee did not make any profit in the business of cold storage plant during the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, but there was profit in the other businesses and the losses, depreciation allO'wance and development rebate in respect of the cold storage plant were adjusted against the profit from the other businesses in computing the total income of the assessee chargeable to ta.x for those assessment years. The Income Tax Officer and in appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim of the assessee for adjustment. But in further appeal the Tribunal held that since the losses as well as depreciation allowance and development rebate in respect of the cold storage business for the past assessment years were already adjusted against the profit from other businesses, no part of such losses, depreciation allowance or development rebate remained unabsorbed so as to be carried forward and set off against the profit for the assessment year 1970-71 and hence the prQ:fit of Rs. 1,51,011 /· from the cold storage business woo not liable to be reduced by any such set off and the assessee was entitled to claim that from out of such profit there should be deducted, first, the amount of Rs. 83,891/- representing the relevant amount of capital employed during the previous year .and then the amounts of deficiency for the past assessment years. The High Court on a reference, a-t the instance of the Revenue answered the question in favour of the assessee. Dismissing the appeal by special leave the Court, HELD : (I) The proper construction of sub-section (I) of Sec. 80J must, be taken to be that the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking must be computed in accordance with the provisions Of the Act in the same manner as they would be in determining the total income chargeable to tax and it must follow a fortiori that if the tosses, depreciation allowance and development rebate in respect of the new industrial undertaking for the. past assessn1ent years have been fully set off against the profit of the assessee from other business or for the matter of that, against the income of the assessee under any other head by reason of sections 70 and 71 read with sub-section (2) of Sec. 32 and sub-section (2) of Sec. 32A, no part of mch losses, depreciation allowance or development rebate would be liable to be adjusted over again in computing the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking for applying the provision contained in sub-sectiott (I) of Sec. 80J. The same mode of comput~tion must prevail also in applying the provision containea in .. C.I.T. V. PATIALA FLOUR MILLS (Bhagwati, J.) 1129 sub-section (3) of sec. 801, because that sub-section provide.;; for setting off A the ca-rried-forward amount of deficiency· of the past assessment years against "the profits and gains referred to in sub-section 1" or Sec. 801, as computed. after allowing inter alia the deduction admissible under sub-section and, therefore, if, for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Sec. 801, the profits or gainJ of the new industrial undertaking are to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and no part of the losses, depreciation allowa·nce or development rebate for the past assessment years which has been fully set off against B the prdfit from other businesses or income under any other head is liable to be adjusted over agian in computing the profits or gains of the ilCW industrial undertaking, no such adjustment would equally be permissible in applying the provision contained in sub-sl!ct.ion (3) of Section 801. [1136 D-H, 1137-i\] (2) It is clear from the language of sub-section (I) of Section 80J that the profits or gains of a new industrial undertaking from which deduction of the relevant amount of capital employed during a particular '.lssessment year is allowaible under that provision, are the profits or gains includible in the computation of the total income chargeable to tax. Therefore, whatever be the profits of""'gains of the new industrial undertaking computed for the purpose of arnviiij: at the total income chargeable to tax, would have to be taken to be the profits or gains for applying the provision contained in sub-section ( l) of Section 80). [1135 0-E] (3) There are no two modes of computation Of the protits or gains of the new industrial undertaking contemplated by sub-section (1) of Sec. 801, one for determining the total income chargeable to tax and the other for applying the provision contained in that sub-section. The language of sub-section ( 1) of Section 80} is clear a11d explicit and leaves no doubt that the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking for the purpose of allowing the deduction provided in that sub-section, have to be computed in the same manner in \Vhich they would be in determining the total income chargeable to tax and a deduction has then to be made from such profits or gaini:;, of the relevant a.mount of capital employed during the as..o;;essment year in question. lt cannot be held by any process of construction, even by turning and twisting the language of sub~section ( 1) of Sec. 80J that for the purpose of allowing the deduction contemplated under that section the profits or gains of the ne'v industrial undertaking must be computed in a manner ditlerent from that In which they would be computed in determining the total income chargeable to tax. Sub-section ( 1) of Section 801 does not create ai legal fiction that for the purpose of applying the provision contained in that sub-section, the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking shall be computed as if the new industrial undertaking were the only business of the· assc3.See Tight trorn the date of its establishment or the losses, depreciation allowance or_ development rebate in respect of the new industrial undertaking for the past assessment }'tars were not set off against the profit from other businesses. If the construction of sub-section (I) of Sec. 80J contended for and on behalf of the Revenue were accepted, it would lead to the absurd result that there would be two species of profit'i or gains of the new industrial undertaking, one for inclusion, in the total income chargeable to tax and the other for detennining the ava·ilability of the deduction under sub-section (l ) of Section SOJ. That would be plainly contrary to the express language of sub-section (I) of Section 80J. [1135 E-H, 1136 A-0] c D E F G H A B c D E F G J!I ·::::ea·· Ji30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 1 s.c.R. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTJON : Civil Appeal No. 2395 of 1977. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 28-10-1976 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in LT. Ref. No. 16/74. P. A. Francis, B. B. Ahuja and Miss A. Subhashini for the Appellant. G. C. Sharma and S. P. Nayar for the Respondent. Devi Pal, S. R. Banerjee, J. B. Dadachanji, Ravinder Narain and Mrs. A. K. Verma for the Intervener (The Indian Aluminium) R. N. Bajoria, P. V. Kapur, U. K. Khaitan, Praveen Kumar and R. K. Chaudhary for the Intervener (Orient Sugar Mills) The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI, J.-The assessee, a private limited company, carried on several businesses amongst which there was a business of cold storage plant. This cold storage plant was put up in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1967-68 and it was a new industrial undertaking to which sub-section ( 4) of section 80J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 applied. The assessee did not make any profit in the business of cold storage plant during the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, but there was profit in the other businesses and the losses, depreciation allowance and development rebate in respect of the cold storage plant were adjusted against the profit from the other businesses in computing the total i~ome of the assessee charg~able to tax for those assessment years. No loss and no part of the depreciation allowance or development rebate in respect of the cold storage plant remained un-absorbed so as to be available for carry forward and set olI in the as.sessment year 1970-71. The business of cold storage plant turned the comer after the initial teething trouble and it made a profit of Rs. 1,51,011/- in the assessment year 1970-71 after taking into account the current year's depreciation allowance and development rebate. The assessee claimed in its assessment to tax for the assessment year 1970-71 that the amounts of deficiency under section 80J for the current as well as past asseosment years were liable1 to be adjusted against the profit of Rs. 1,51,011/- for that assessment year. Since the claim was based on section 80J, it would be convenien.t at this ~tage to ref~r to the relevant provisions of that section. Section 80J was introduced J (. / • C.I.T. v. PATIALA FLOUR MILLS (Bhagwati, J.) 1131 in the Act in place of section 84 by Finance Act, 1967 with effect from 1st April, 1968. The material portions of that section read as under : "80J. (1) Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking or a ship or the business of a hotel, to which 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 a§sessee, a deduction from such profits and gains (reduced by the deduction, if any, admissible to the assessee, under section 80HH) of so much of the amount thereof as do~s not exceed the amount calculated at the rate of six per cent per annum on the ' capital employed in the industrial undertaking or ship or business of the hotel, as the case may be, computed in the prescribed manner in respect of the previous year relevant to the assessment year (the amount cl)lculated as aforesaid being hereafter, in this section, referred to as the relevant amount of ca.Pital employed during the previous year) : x x x x x (2) The deduction specified in sub-section ( 1) shall be allowed in computing the total income in respect of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the the industrial undertaking begins to manufacture or produce '!rticles or to operate its cold storage plant or plants or the ship is first brought into use or the business of the hotel starts functioning (such assessment year being hereafter, in this section, refer.red to as the initial assessment year) and each of the four assessment years immediately succeeding the initial assessment year: x x x x x (3) Where the amount of the profits and gains derived from the industrial undertaking or ship or busines~ of the hotel, as the case may be, included in the total income (as computed without applying the provision~ of section 64 and before making any deduction under Chapter VI-A or secti_on 280-D) in respect of the previous year relevant to an assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of Apd, 1967, (not being an assessment year or subsequent to the. fourth assessment year as reckoned from the end of the initial assessment year) falls short of the relevant al!J.ount of A B c D E F G B A B c D E F G H ,,~~-;. 1132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] l s.c.R. capital employed during the previous year, the amount of such shortfall, or, where there are no such profi!S and gains, an amount equal to the relevant amount of c~pital employed during the previous year (such amount, in either case, being hereafter, in this section referred to as deficiency) shall be carried forward and set off against the profits and gains referred to in sub-section (1) [as computed after allowing the deductions, if any, admissible under section 80 BB and the said sub-section (1)] in respect of the previous year relevant to !he next following assc~sment year and, if there are .no such profits and gains for that assessment year, or where the deficiency exceeds such profits and gains, the whole or balance of the deficiency, as the case may be, shall be set off against such profits and gains for the next following assessment year and if so far as such deficiency cannot be wholly so set off, it shall be set off against such profits and gains. assessable for the next following assessment year and so on: Provided that- (i) in no case shall the deficiency or any part thereof be carried forward beyond the seventh assessment year as reckoned from the end of the initial assessment year; (ii) where there is more than one deficiency and each such deficiency relates to a different assessment year, the deficiency which relates to an earlier assessment year shall be set off under this sub-section before setting off the deficiency in relation to a latter assessment year: x x x x x ( 4) This section applies to any industrial undertaking which fulfils all the following conditions, namely :- (i) it is not formed by the splitting up, or the reconstruction, of a business already in existence; (ii) it is not formed by the transfer to a new business of machinery or plan previously used for any purpose; (iii) it manufactures or produces articles, or operates one or more• cold storage plant or plants, in any part of India, and has begun or begins to operate such plant or plants, at any time within the period of ) I -' C.J.T. v. PATIALA FLOUR MILLS (Bhagwati, J.) thirty-three years next following tjle 1st day of April, 1948, or such further period as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify with reference to any particular industrial undertaking; (iv) in a case where the industrial undertaking manl!ffactures or produces articles, the undertaking employs ten or more workers in a manufacturing process carried on with the aid of power, or employs twenty or more workers in a manufacturing process carried on without the aid or power; 1133 Since there was no profit from the cold storage plant in the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, the whole of the relevant amount of capital employed during each of the relevant previous years remained unabsorbed and constituted deficiency for e~ch of those assessment years and had to be carried forward from year to year upto the assessment year 1970-71 under seb-section (3) of section 80J. The amounts of deficiency for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 came to Rs. 11,155/-, Rs. 1,14,153/- and Rs. 90,228 /-. The relevant amount of capital employed during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1970-71 was Rs. 83,391/-. The assessee claimed thl).t this amount of Rs. 83,391/- representing the relevant amount of capital employed in the assessment year 1970-71 was liable to be set of! against the profit of Rs. 1,51,011/- derived from the cold storage business under subsection (1) of section 80J and so far as the balance of the profit was concerned. the amounts of deficiency for the past assessment years, namely, Rs. 11,155/-, Rs .. 1,14,153/- and Rs. 90,228/- which were carried forward to the assess_ment year 1970-71, were liable to be adjusted against it under sub-section (3) of section 80J. The Income Tax Officer did not dispute the figures of the relevant amount of capital employed in the assessment year 1970-71 or of the amounts of deficiency for the past assessment years, but held that there was no profit from the business of cold storage plant in the assessment year 1970-71 against which any part of the relevant amount of capital employed during the assessment year 1970-71 could be adjusted under sub-section ( 1) of section 80J or any part of the carried forward amounts of deficiency for the past assessment years, deducted under sub-section (3) of section 80J. It was not possible to disagree with the assessee that the business of the cold storage plant had A B c D E F G H A B c D E F G B 1134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] l s.c.R. resulted in a profit of Rs. 1,51,011/- in the assessment year 1970-71 and in fact it was conceded that this was the amount of profit liable to be taken into account in computing the total income of the assessee chargeable to tax, but the Income Tax Officer took the view that in computing the profit of the cold storage business for the purpose of applying the provision contained in sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 80J, the losses as well as the depreciation allowa:nce and development rebate in respect of that busin(oss for the past assessment years should be adjusted aganst the profit of Rs. 1,51,011/-, since there was no profit at all from that business in the past assessment years against which any part of such lo~ses, depreciation allowance or development rebate could be absorbed. The Income Tax Officer ignored the fact that the lossess as well as the depreciation allowance and development rebate in respect of the cold storage business for the past assessment years were already adjusted against the profit of the assessee from other businesses and no part of the losses, depreciation allowance or development rebate remained unl!_bsorbed for being carried forward and set off against the profit of Rs, 1,51,011/- in the assessment year 1970-71 <1nd proceeded on the assumption that for the purpose of snb-secton (1) and (3) of section 80J, the cold storage business was to be treated in isolation and its profit was to be computed as if the earlier years' losses, depreciation allowance and development rebate had not been set off against the profit from other businesses. The I11come Tax Officer accordingly declined to allow any deduction from the profit of Rs. 1,51,011/- in respect of the relevant amount of ca.Pita! employed in the assessment year 1970-71 under sub-section (1) of section 80J and in respect of the amounts of deficiency for the past assessment years under sub-section (3) of section 80J •nd made assessment on the assessee wthout permitting such deduction. The assessee challenged the decision of the Income Tax Officer by preferring an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but the Appellate Assistant Com:missioner took the same view and rejected the appeal. The assessee thereupo_n carri~d the matter in further appeal aJ1d in the appeal, the assessee succeeded in persuading the Tribunal to hold that since the losses as well as depreciation allowance and development rebate in respect of the cold storage business for the past assessment years were already adjusted against the profit from other businesses, no part of such los~es, depreciation allowance or development rebate remained unabsorbed so as to be carried forward and set off ~gainst the profit for the assessment year 1970-71 and hence the profit of Rs. 1,51,011/- from the cold storage business was not liable to be reduced by any such set off and the assessee was entitled to r ' " c.I.T. v. PATIALA FLOUR MILLS (Bhagwati, J.) 1135 claim that from out of such profit there should be deducted, first, the A amount of Rs. 83,891/- representing the relevant amount of capital employed during the previous year and then, the amounts of deficiency for the past assessment years. The Revenue being aggrieved by the order of the Tribun~ llJ!lde an applcation for a reference and on the application, the following question of .law was referred· for the opinion of the High Court : B "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing the deduction under section 80J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?" The High Court agreed with the view taken by the Tribunal and answered the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Revenue thereupon preferred the present appeal with special leave obtained from this Court. Now it is clear from the language of sub-section ( 1) of section 80J that the profits or gains of a new industrial undertalcing from which deduction of the relevant amount of capital employed during a particular assessment year is allowable under that provision, are the profits or gains includible in the computation of the total income chargeable to tax. Therefore, whatever be the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking computed for the purpose of arriving at the total income chargeable to tax, would have to be taken to be the profits or gains for applying the provision contained in sub-section (1) of section 80J. There are no two modes of computation of the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking contemplated by sub-section (1) of section 80J, one for determining the total income chargeable to tax and the other for applying the provision contained in that sub-section. The language of sub-section ( 1) of section 80J is clear and explicit and leaves no doubt that the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking for the purpose of allowing the deduction provided in that sub-section, have to be COJ!1Puted in the same manner in which they would be in determining the total income chargeable to tax and a deducton has then to be made from such profits or gains, of the relevant amount of capital employed during the assessment year in question. It is impossible to see how, by any process of constructioQ, even by turning and twisting the language of sub-section (1) of section 80J, it can be held that for the purpose of allowing the deduction contemplated under that section the profits or gains of the new industrial U!ldertaking must be computed in a c D E F G H A B c D E F G H 1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 1 s.c.R. manner different from that in which they would be computed in determining the total income chargeable t9 tax. Sub-section ( 1) of section 80J does not create a legal fiction that for the purpose of applying the provision contained in that sub-secton, the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking shall be computed as if the new industrial undertaking were the only business of the assessee right from the date of its establishment or the lossess, depreciation allowance or development rebate in respect of the new industrial undertaking for the past asse~sment years were not set off against the profit from other businesses. If the construction of sub-section ( 1) of section 80J contended for and on behalf of the Revenue were accepted, it would lead to the absurd result that there would be two species of profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking, one for inclusion in the total income chargeable to tax and the other for determining the availability of the deduction under sub-section ( 1) of section 80J. That would be plainly contrary to the express language of subsection (1) of section 80J. The proper construction of sub-section ( 1) of section 80J must, therefore, be taken to be that the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking must be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act in the same manner as they would be in determining the total income chargeable to tax and it must follow ai fortiori that if the losses, depreciation allowance and development rebate in respect of the n_ew industrial undertaking for the pas_t asses.sment years have been fully set off against the profit of the assessee from other busin_esses or for the matter of that, against the income of the assessee under any other head by reason of sections 70 and 71 read with sub-section (2) of section 32 and sub-section (2) of section 32A, no part of such losses, depreciation allowance or development rebate would be liable to be adjusted over again in computing the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking for applying the provision cont;iined in sub-section ( 1) of section 80J. The same mode of computation must prevail also in applying the provision contained in sub-section (3) of section 80J, because that subsection provides for setting off the carried-forward amount of deficiency of the past assessment ye_ars again.st "the profits and gains referred to in sub-section (1)" of section 80J, as computed after allowing inter alia the deduction admissible under that sub-section and, therefore, if, for the purpose of sub-section (1) of section 80J, the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking are to be computed in accordance with the provisio11s of the Act and no part of the losses, depreciation allowance or development rebate for the past assessment years which has been fully set off :igainst the profit from other businesses or income under any other head is liable to be adI' , '• j •• '\ c.I.T. v. PATIALA FLOUR MILLS (Bhagwati, J.) 1137 justed over again in computing the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking; no such adjustment would equally be permissible in applying the provision contained in sub-~ection (3) of section 80J. Here, in the present case, it was common ground th