Supreme Court of India
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TAMIL NADU-V MADRASversusKOTAGIRI INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE TEA FACTORY LTD., KOTAGIRI
- Citation
- 1997 INSC 233
- Decided
- 5 March 1997
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
A deduction under section 80‑P(2) cannot be allowed before the carried forward losses are set off under section 72; the Income Tax Officer was correct.
Summary
The Kotagiri Industrial Co‑operative Tea Factory Ltd., a co‑operative society, earned Rs 85,150 in the assessment year 1972‑73 and had carried forward losses of Rs 1,82,744. It claimed a deduction of Rs 53,386 under section 80‑P(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Income Tax Officer first set off the carried forward losses under section 72, found the losses exceeded the income and denied the deduction. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Madras High Court allowed the deduction before the loss set‑off. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that "gross total income" must be computed in accordance with the Act, which requires setting off losses under section 72 before applying the deduction under section 80‑P(2). Consequently, the IT Officer was correct and the deduction could not be allowed. The appeal was allowed and the High Court judgment set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether a deduction under section 80‑P(2) can be allowed before setting off unabsorbed business losses carried forward under section 72.
- How the expression "gross total income" in section 80‑P(1) is to be interpreted in view of its definition in section 80‑B(5).
- Whether the principle of statutory construction applies to the term "gross total income" in section 80‑P.
Legislation cited
- Income Tax Act, 1961s. 72, s. 80-B(5), s. 80-P(1), s. 80-P(2)
Subjects
Income TaxSection 80-PCarried forward lossesGross total incomeCo‑operative societyStatutory interpretationLoss set‑offAssessment year
Judgment
A COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
TAMIL NADU-V MADRAS
v.
KOTAGIRI INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE
TEA FACTORY LTD., KOTAGIRI
B
MARCH 5, 1997
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Income Tax Act, 1961 : Sections 72, BOP and BOB(S}-Cooperative
C Society-Carried forward losses-Deduction claimed under sec.BOP-Los- .
ses-Set-off--Losses in excess of income-Deduction claimed not allowed by
Income Tax Officer, but allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner
and Tribunal-On appeal, held : Income Tax Officer rightly set off carried
forward losses of earlier year-Justified in not allowing deduction as losses
D exceeded income.
Interpretation of statutes :
Statut01y Construction-Principle-Applicability of
Words & Phrases :
E
"Gross total income"--Meaning of in the context of sec. BO-P and
80-B(S) of ihe Income Tax Act, 1961.
The respondent Co-operative Society was engaged in manufacture
F and sale of tea. In the previous year there were certain losses which had
been carried forward to the relevant assessment year. The assessee claimed
deduction under sec. 80P(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from the total
income earned. The Income-Tax Officer first set off the losses of previous
years that had been carried forward against the income and since the
losses were in excess of the income, he held that no deduction was permis-
G sible under section 80-P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The view of the
Income Tax Officer was not accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commis-
sioner who held that deduction under section 80-P should first be made
out of the income and thereafter the losses of the previous years were to
be set off. It was affirmed in appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
H On reference, High Court held against the Revenue. Hence this appeal....
738
C.I.T. v. KOTAGIRIINDL. CO-OP. TEAFACTORYLTD. 739
The contention of the appellant Revenue was that the High Court A
was in error in proceeding on the basis that the deduction under section
80-P must be made before the adjustment of the losses of the previous year
under section 72 of the Act.
The contention of the respondent-assessee on the other hand was
that since the matter relates to a co-operative society and it was the policy B
of the legislature to encourage the co- operative movement the provisions
of section 80-P must be liberally construed in favour of the assessee.
Allowing this appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. Before considering the matter of deduction under section C
80-P(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Income Tax Officer had rightly
set off the carried forward losses of the earlier years in accordance with
section 72 of the ~ct and on finding that the said losses exceeded the
income, he rightly did not allow any deduction under section 80-P(2) and
the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Tribunal and the D
High Court were in error in taking a contrary view. [744-G]
Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI of India & Ors., 155 ITR 120
and H.N. Sir Rama Vanna v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1994) 205, ITR
433, relied on.
E
2. Section 80-P(l) read with definition of the expression "gross total
income" contained in section 80B(S), indicates that for the purpose of
- making deduction under section 80-P it is necessary to first determine the
gross total income in accordance with the other provisions of the Act.
Accordingly for the purposes of the present case, the gross total income
must be determined by setting off against the income the business losses F
of the earlier years as required under section 72 of the Act. [742-E]
3. The principle of statutory construction has no application in
construing the expression "gross total income" in sub-section (1) of section
80-P. In view of the express provision defining the said provision in section G
80-B(S) for the purpose of Chapter VI-A, there is no scope for construing
the said expression differently in section 80-P. [744-H, 74S•A]
-- Cloth Traders (P) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax,
(1979) 118 ITR 243 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Venkatachalam,
(1971) ITR 688, held inapplicable. H
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 2 S.C.R.
A Cambay Elect1ic Supply Industrial v. Commissioner of Income Tax,
(1978) 113 ITR 84, referred to ..
Broach Distt. Co-opertive Cotton Sales "Ginning and Pressing Society
Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad, (1989) 177 ITR 418, cited.
B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5912 of
1983.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.1.82 of the Madras High
Court in T.C. No. 407 of 1977.
C Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, S. Rajappa and C. Radhakrishna for the
Appellant. ·
Ms. Janki Ramachandran for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered :
D
This appeal, by certificate, is directed. against the judgment of the
Madras High Court dated January 22, 1982 in Tax Case No. 407 of 1977.
The Kotagiri Industrial Co-operative Tea Factory Ltd., respondent
(hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') is a co- operative society. It
carries on business in manufacture and sale of tea from brought tea leaves
E and the purchase and supply of agricultural manure to members. It is also
deriving income from dividend from investments with other· co-operative
societies. In the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1972-73 the
assessee earned a total income of Rs. 85,150. The losses of the earlier year
which had been carried forward to the said assessment year were Rs.
F 1,82,744. The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 53,386 under Section
-
80-P(2) from the income of Rs. 85,150. The Income Tax Officer first set
off the loses of previous years that had been carried forward against the
income and since the losses were in excess of the income, he held that no
deduction ·was permissible under Section 80-P of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said view of the Income Tax
G Officer was not accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who
held that deduction under Section 80-P should first be made out of the
income and thereafter the losses of the previou's year were to be set off.
The said decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was affirmed
in appeal by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as
H 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal referred the following question for the
C.I.T. v. KOTAGIRIINDL. CO-OP. TEA FACTORY LTD. 741
opinion of the High Court :- A
"whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
Appellate Tribunal was wright in law in holding that the deduction
under Section 80-P of the Income Tax Act should be allowed
before set off of unabsorbed losses of earlier year ?"
B
The said question has been answered by the High Court against the
Revenue. In the impugned judgment the High Court has followed its earlier
decision .in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Katpadi Co-operative Timber
Works Ltd., (1982) 135 ITR 287, wherein the High Court had held that so
long as the gross total income of a co-operative society includes income C
referable to the activities mentioned in Section 80-P(2) the assessee would
- be eligible for the deduction and it is only if there is any amount left
fttereafter that could be the subject of consideration of set off of carried
forward losses. The High Court followed the decision of this Court in Cloth
Traders (P) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, (1979) 118 ITR
243, as well as its own decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. D
Venkatachalam, (1971) 120 ITR 688.
Dr. V. Gaurishankar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
Revenue, has submitted that the High Court was in error in proceeding on
the basis that the deduction under Section 80-P must be made before the
adjustment of the losses of the previous year under Section 72 of the Act.
E
The learned counsel has placed reliance on definition of the expression
- "gross total income" contained in Section 80-B(5) and has contended that
the decision in Cloth Traders (P) Ltd (supra) has since b1:;en reversed by
a Constitution ·Bench of this Court in Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. v.
Union of India & Ors., 155 ITR 120. Dr. Gaurishankar has also invited our F
attention to the rec;ent decision in H.H. Sir Rama Vamia v. Commissioner
- of Income Tax, (1994) 205 ITR 433.
Ms. Janaki Ramachandran, the learned counsel appearing for the
assessee, has also placed reliance on certain observations in Distributors
(Baroda) Pvt. Ltd.· (supra) and has submitted that since the matter relates G
to a co-operative society and it is the policy of the Legislature to encourage
the co-operative movement the provisions of Section 80-P, which have been
enacted in furtherance of this policy to encourage and promote the growth
of co-operative societies, must be liberally construed in favour of the
- assessee. The learned counsel has. placed reliance on the decision of this H
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) 2 S.C.R.
A Court in Broach Distt. Co-operative Cotton Sales Ginning and Pressing
Society Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad, (1989) 177 ITR
418.
Reference may be made at this stage to the provisions of Section 80-P
which falls in Chapter VI-A of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 80-P,
B which is relevant for the purpose of the case, provides as follows :-
"80-P(l). Where in the case of an assessee being a co-operative
society, the gross total income includes any income referred to in
sub-section (2) there shall be deducted in accordance with and
c subject to the provisions of this Section, the same specified in
sub-section (2), in computing the total income of the assessee."
For the purpose of Chapter VI-A the expression "gross total income"
is defined in clause (5) of Section 80-B in the following terms :-
-
D "Gross total income" means the total income computed in accord-
ance with the provisions of this Act, before making any deduction
under this Chapter."
If Section 80-P(l) is read with definition of the expression "gross total
E income" contained in Section 80-B(S), it has to be held that for the purpose
of making deduction under Section 80-P it is necessary to first determine
the gross total income in accordance with the other provisions of the Act.
This means that for the purposes of the present case the gross total income
F
must be determined by setting off against the income the business losses
of the earlier years as required under Section 72 of the Act. -
In Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) this Court has dealt with
the question whether deduction of income by way of dividends under
Section 80-M has to be made from the income computed in accordance
with the provisions of the Act, i.e., after deducting interest on monies
borrowed for earning such income or from total income of dividends
G without so deducting the interest amount. In the earlier decision in Cloth
Traders Pvt. Ltd. (supra) a three Judge Bench of t~is Court had held that
the deduction required to be allowed under Section 80-M must be calcu-
lated with reference to the full amount of dividends received from a
domestic company and not with reference to the dividend income as
H computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, i.e., after making
C.I.T. v. KOTAGIRI INDL. CO-OP. IBA FACTORY LTD. 743
deduction as provided under the Act. In the said decision in Cloth Traders A
Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the Court did not notice the earlier decision of a two
Judge Bench of the Court in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Income Tax, (1978) 113 ITR 84, wherein, ,in the context
of Section 80-E, it was held that· for tp.e purpose of aUowing deduction
under the said provision it was necessary to first compute the total income B
of the assessee in accordance with the other provisions of the Act, i.e., in
accordance with all the provisions except Section 80-E. The decision in
Cloth Traders Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has been overruled by the Constitution
Bench in Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been ob-
served :-
c
"The opening words describe the condition which must be fulfilled
in order to attract the applicability of the provision contained in
sub-section (1) of Section 80-M. The condition is that the gross
total income of the assessee must include income by way of
dividends from a domestic company. "Gross total income" is .I) .
defined in Section 80-B, clause (5), to mean the 'total income
computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act before
making any deduction under Chapter VI-A or under Section
280-0'. Income by way of dividends from a domestic company
included in the gross total income would therefore obviously be
income computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, E
that is, after deducting interest on moneys borrowed for earning
such income. If income by way of dividends from a domestic
company computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act
is included in the gross total income, or in other words forms part
of the gross total income, the condition specified in the opening F
part of sub-section (1) of Section 80-M would be fulfilled and the
provision enacted in that sub-section would be attracted." [p. 135]
We are unable to hold that the observations made in the judgment
while construing the words "such income by way of dividends" in any way
detract from the above quoted observations inasmuch as this Court has G
clearly said :-
"It is obvious, as a matter of plain grammar, that the words "such
income by way of dividends" must have reference to the income
by way of dividends mentioned earlier and that would be income H
744 SUPREM!·: ( :ornu REPORTS f1997] 2 S.C.R.
A by way of dividends from a domestic company which is included
in the gross total income. Consequently, in order to determine
which is "such income by way of dividends'', we have to ask the
question : what is the income by way of dividends from a domestic
company included in the gross total income and that would ob-
viously be the income by way of dividends computed in accordance
B
with the provisions of the Act. [p. 136]
It may also be pointed out that while considering the provisions of
Section 80-T of the Act this Court has followed the decision in Distributors
C
(Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in H.H. Sir Rama Vanna v. Commissioner of
Income Tax (supra). In that case it has been held that a long term capital
1
loss brought forward from earlier assessment years had to be fust set off
against the long term capital gains of the current assessment year before
deduction contemplated by Section 80-T of the Act is allowed and the
relief under Section 80-T is to be given only for the amount of long term
capital gains of the current assessment year after the long term capital loss
D of the earlier years brought forward is set off.
It is no doubt true that the decision of the Madras High Court in
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Venkatachalam, (supra) has been affirmed
in appeal by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Venkatachalam,
E (1993) 201 ITR 737. That decision was also given in the context of Section
80-T of the Act. It has been taken note of by this Court in H.H. Sir Rama
Vanna v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (supra). B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. was
a party in both decisions. In Venkatachalam (supra) this Court has em-
phasised that the deduction under Section 80-T had to be made from out
of capital gains and no question would arise of the business loss being set
F off against the amount of capital gains.
Having regard to the law as laid down by this Court in Distributors
(Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and H.H. Sir Rama Vanna (supra), it must be
held that before considering the matter of deduction under Section 80-P(2)
G the Income Tax Officer had rightly set off the carried forward losses of the
earlier years in accordance with Section 72 of the Act and on finding that
the said losses exceeded the income, he rightly did not allow any deduction
under Section 80-P(2) and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well
as the Tribunal and the High Court were in error in taking a contrary view.
H The principle of statutory construction invoked by Ms.
C.I.T. v. KOTAGIRI INDL. CO-OP. TEA FACTORY LTD. 745
Ramachandran has no application in construing the expression "gross total A
income" in sub-section ( 1) of Section 80-P. In view of the express provision
defining the said expression in Section 80-B(S) for the purpose of Chapter
VI-A, there is no scope for construing the said expression differently in
Section 80-P.
The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the B
High Court is set aside and the question referred for the opinion is
answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the
assessee. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to cost.
S.V.K.I. Appeal allowed
-
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Income Tax"Sign in to search