Commissioner of Income Tax West Bengali, Calcutta Vs. the General Fibre Dealers Pvt. Ltd. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1060747
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided OnFeb-26-2013
JudgeGIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA
AppellantCommissioner of Income Tax West Bengali, Calcutta
RespondentThe General Fibre Dealers Pvt. Ltd.
Excerpt:
order sheet in the high court at calcutta special jurisdiction original side itr no.126 of 1993 commissioner of income tax west bengal-i, calcutta versus the general fibre dealers pvt.ltd.before: the hon'ble justice girish chandra gupta the hon'ble justice tarun kumar das date :26. h february, 2013. for appellant : mr.p.dudhuria, advocate for respondent : mr.debasish mitra, advocate the court : the only question referred to us under section 256(1) reads as follows : “whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to relief under section 35c of the income-tax act, 1961 ?.”. the point was already covered by a judgment of this court in the case of the same assessee, which has also been taken note of, reported in 248 itr 62.wherein the question was decided in favour of the revenue. mr.debasish mitra, learned advocate appearing for the assessee, referred to a judgment of the madras high court in the case of commissioner of income tax, versus sakthi sugar ltd., reported in 254 itr 605. but that judgment is distinguishable on facts because in the judgment itself it has been indicated that the employees of the assessee were rendering services to the agriculturists who had nothing to do with the assessee and in those facts, benefit of section 35c was given. therefore, this judgment has no manner of application. the learned advocate also drew our attention to a judgment of the apex court in the case of commissioner of income tax versus cynmid india ltd., reported in 237 itr 58.(sc).in that case, the assessee incurred expenditure in disseminating literature, pamphlets, etc., containing information on modern techniques and methods of agriculture designed for increasing the yield of rice amongst the cultivators and farmers who grow rice. needless to mention that this judgment also does not help the assessee because the assessee admittedly did not incur any expenditure for the benefit of any one other than the assessee himself. the only other judgment brought to our notice is in the case of bajaj tempo ltd.versus commissioner of income tax, reported in 196 itr 18.(sc).the learned advocate drew our attention to the following views expressed by the apex court : “ a provision in a taxing statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally; and since a provision for promoting economic growth has to be interpreted liberally, the restriction on it too has to be construed so as to advance the objective of the provision and not to frustrate it.” the apex court opined that an interpretation has to be given which shall advance the objective of the provision. the objective of the provision incorporated in section 35c was to promote the pursuit of the agriculturists. the object was not to provide incentives for the agriculture pursued by the assessee himself, which is the case before us. there is as such no reason why any other view than the view already taken by this court can be taken. we are as such of the opinion that the question has to be answered in the negative and in favour of the revenue. the matter is, thus, disposed of. (girish chandra gupta, j.) (tarun kumar das, j.) sm ar[cr].
Judgment:

ORDER

SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ITR No.126 of 1993 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WEST BENGAL-I, CALCUTTA Versus THE GENERAL FIBRE DEALERS PVT.LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE TARUN KUMAR DAS Date :

26. h February, 2013.

For Appellant : Mr.P.Dudhuria, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.Debasish Mitra, Advocate The Court : The only question referred to us under Section 256(1) reads as follows : “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to relief under section 35C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?.”.

The point was already covered by a judgment of this Court in the case of the same assessee, which has also been taken note of, reported in 248 ITR 62.wherein the question was decided in favour of the revenue.

Mr.Debasish Mitra, learned advocate appearing for the assessee, referred to a judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, versus Sakthi Sugar Ltd., reported in 254 ITR 605.

But that judgment is distinguishable on facts because in the judgment itself it has been indicated that the employees of the assessee were rendering services to the agriculturists who had nothing to do with the assessee and in those facts, benefit of Section 35C was given.

Therefore, this judgment has no manner of application.

The learned advocate also drew our attention to a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax versus Cynmid India Ltd., reported in 237 ITR 58.(SC).In that case, the assessee incurred expenditure in disseminating literature, pamphlets, etc., containing information on modern techniques and methods of agriculture designed for increasing the yield of rice amongst the cultivators and farmers who grow rice.

Needless to mention that this judgment also does not help the assessee because the assessee admittedly did not incur any expenditure for the benefit of any one other than the assessee himself.

The only other judgment brought to our notice is in the case of Bajaj Tempo LTD.versus Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 196 ITR 18.(SC).The learned advocate drew our attention to the following views expressed by the Apex Court : “ A provision in a taxing statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally; and since a provision for promoting economic growth has to be interpreted liberally, the restriction on it too has to be construed so as to advance the objective of the provision and not to frustrate it.”

The Apex Court opined that an interpretation has to be given which shall advance the objective of the provision.

The objective of the provision incorporated in Section 35C was to promote the pursuit of the agriculturists.

The object was not to provide incentives for the agriculture pursued by the assessee himself, which is the case before us.

There is as such no reason why any other view than the view already taken by this Court can be taken.

We are as such of the opinion that the question has to be answered in the negative and in favour of the revenue.

The matter is, thus, disposed of.

(GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.) (TARUN KUMAR DAS, J.) sm AR[CR].