1993 (2) TMI 171 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of Surtax Assessment Order under Companies Surtax Act, 1964

Sangli Bank Limited. Versus Income-Tax Officer.

The appeal involved the rectification of a surtax assessment order under section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The Surtax Officer ... Computation Of Capital, Mistake Apparent From Record Issues:1. Rectification of surtax assessment order under section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.2. Inclusion of gratuity fund reserve and bad debt fund reserve in the computation of capital.3. Determination of whether bad and doubtful debt fund can be treated as a reserve.4. Challenge regarding rectification under section 13 based on the nature of 'reserve' or 'provision' for computation of capital.Analysis:1. The appeal involved the rectification of a surtax assessment order under section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The Surtax Officer rectified the assessment due to a mistake in the computation of chargeable profits, specifically related to the double deduction of tax-free income and incorrect computation of capital. The rectification was proposed after identifying errors in the initial assessment order, which included the incorrect treatment of tax-free income and reserves in the computation of capital.2. The issue of including gratuity fund reserve and bad debt fund reserve in the computation of capital was raised. The Surtax Officer initially treated these reserves as part of the capital, but the assessee contended that these reserves should be included. The assessee relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court to support the inclusion of gratuity reserve in the computation of capital. The CST(A) directed the Surtax Officer to include the gratuity fund reserve in the computation of capital. However, the bad and doubtful debt fund reserve was not treated as a reserve by the CST(A) due to specific facts related to its creation and treatment.3. The debate over whether the bad and doubtful debt fund could be treated as a reserve was analyzed. The CST(A) rejected the claim to treat this fund as a reserve based on the specific circumstances of its creation and treatment. The assessee argued for the inclusion of this fund as a reserve, citing judgments from the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the nature of ad hoc reserves. The final decision was in favor of the assessee, reversing the CST(A)'s order and directing the Surtax Officer to treat the bad and doubtful debt fund as a reserve.4. The challenge regarding rectification under section 13 was also addressed. The nature of items as 'reserve' or 'provision' for the computation of capital was deemed clear by the CST(A), leading to the rejection of the challenge posed by the assessee. The debate over the rectifiability of the original order was raised, but the final decision favored the assessee, indicating that there was no mistake apparent from the record calling for rectification. The appeal was allowed based on the comprehensive analysis of the issues involved.