Bad debt fund treated as reserve for surtax computation; rectification failed because the classification was not an apparent mistake.

A bad and doubtful debt fund maintained through periodic ad hoc transfers, without earmarking against specific debts, was treated as a reserve rather than a provision for surtax computation, and was therefore includible in capital under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The fund's character as a banking reserve, supported by the practice of writing off actual bad debts directly to profit and loss account, defeated the revenue's contrary classification. Rectification under section 13 was also invalid because the reserve-versus-provision issue was not a patent mistake apparent from the record; once the fund was held to be a reserve on its legal and factual character, there was no basis for rectification.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the bad and doubtful debt fund was a reserve includible in the computation of capital under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. (ii) Whether the rectification under section 13 was valid on the ground of a mistake apparent from the record.

Issue (i): Whether the bad and doubtful debt fund was a reserve includible in the computation of capital under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.

Analysis: The fund was maintained by periodic ad hoc transfers without identification with any particular bad debt. Debts which actually became bad were written off directly to profit and loss account, while the fund was shown in a manner consistent with a secret reserve in banking practice. The nature of the account, the manner of its creation, and the banking company's entitlement to maintain such reserve supported the conclusion that it was not a mere provision for an existing liability. The distinction drawn by the lower authority on the facts of the case was not accepted.

Conclusion: The bad and doubtful debt fund was held to be a reserve and had to be included in the computation of capital in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the rectification under section 13 was valid on the ground of a mistake apparent from the record.

Analysis: The classification of the fund as reserve or provision was not shown to be a patent and obvious error justifying rectification. Once the fund was held to be a reserve on the facts and legal character of the account, the foundation for treating the original assessment as suffering from an apparent mistake disappeared. The rectificatory action therefore could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The rectification was held to be invalid and unsustainable in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the substantive classification of the fund and on the challenge to rectification, resulting in the allowance of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: For surtax computation, a fund created on an ad hoc basis and maintained as a secret reserve in banking practice is a reserve and not a provision, and such a debatable classification does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification.

---