Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1812-1813 OF 2005
SESHASAYEE PAPER & BOARDS LIMITED .....APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....RESPONDENT(S)
W I T H
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4498 OF 2015
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 15251 OF 2008)
J U D G M E N T
A.K. SIKRI, J.
Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15251 of
2008.
2) Facts, as they appear in Civil Appeal Nos. 1812-1813 of 2005, are
taken note of as the following substantial question of law, which
arises for consideration, is common in these appeals:
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right
in holding that the unabsorbed depreciation should
be allowed before the allowance of the unabsorbed
investment allowance in computing income of the
appellant/assessee for the Assessment Year
1991-1992, when the assessee had not claimed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Suman Wadhwa
Date: 2015.05.22
14:49:24 IST
Reason:
Civil Appeal Nos. 1812-1813 of 2005 Page 1 of 22
the unabsorbed depreciation in its income-tax
return though it had claimed depreciation for the
current year?
3) The aforesaid question has arisen for consideration in the
following set of facts:
4) The appellant/assessee is a public limited company engaged in
the business of manufacturing paper. It had filed its return under
Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the 'Act') for
the Assessment Year 1991-92 declaring its income as 'Nil' . In
fact, the income for that year after showing exemptions,
deductions and additions, which are to be made in terms of
Sections 28 onward relating to computation of the business
income, was arrived at ₹ 2,87,15,912. The assessee had
unabsorbed investment allowance of previous years. It also had
unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years. In its income-tax
return, however, it chose to carry forward investment allowance
and claimed set off of the said unabsorbed investment allowance
to the extent of ₹ 2,87,15,912, thereby showing the returned
income as 'Nil' . According to the Assessing Officer, it was not the
investment allowance, but unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier
years which had to be set off first by giving priority to the
unabsorbed depreciation. Therefore, instead of allowing the
Civil Appeal Nos. 1812-1813 of 2005 Page 2 of 22
assessee to carry forward investment allowance, the Assessing
Officer adjusted the unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years,
namely 1983-84, 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 (part), and
accepted 'Nil' income return as filed by the assessee, but on the
aforesaid basis.
5) The assessee, however, was not satisfied with the aforesaid
treatment of setting off of the unabsorbed depreciation instead of
investment allowance. It filed appeal before the Commissioner
(Appeals). This appeal was, however, dismissed following the
judgment of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income
1
Tax v. Coromandel Steels . The assessee approached the
Tribunal. The Tribunal also confirmed the order of the
Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee, still not satisfied,
approached the Madras High Court. Even the High Court, vide
impugned judgment dated September 15, 2004, has affirmed the
view taken by the authorities below and dismissed the appeal of
the assessee. As the grievance still persists, the present appeal
questions the treatment given to the income-tax return in the
manner mentioned above, which has come up for consideration
after special leave to appeal was granted.
1
(1981) 130 ITR 856
Civil Appeal Nos. 1812-1813 of 2005 Page 3 of 22
6) It is in this backdrop the question of law, which is to be answered
and formulated above, relates to the issue as to whether it is
unabsorbed investment allowance which is to be allowed as set
off in computing the income of the assessee for the assessment
year in question or unabsorbed depreciation.
7) As pointed out above, in the income-tax return the assessee had
claimed set off of unabsorbed investment allowance. However,
this request is declined as according to the High Court, provisions
of Section 32 of the Act mandate that precedence has to be given
to unabsorbed depreciation before allowing unabsorbed
investment allowance.
8) The plea of the assessee before the High Court was that in the
absence of any claim by the assessee towards depreciation
allowance, the assessing authority could not erroneously assume
that such a claim would be untenable under the provisions of the
Act and could not thrust the deduction of carrying forward
depreciation allowance, when the assessee had chosen to have
set off of unabsorbed investment allowance and it is the assessee
whose option should prevail. It was also argued that even if the
Civil Appeal Nos. 1812-1813 of 2005 Page 4 of 22
provision of law was not very clear and was susceptible to two
interpretations, one which was more beneficial to the assessee
had to be given effect to.
9) The High Court took note of these contentions of the assessee
predicated on the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court in Ram Nath Jindal & Anr. v. Commissioner of Income
2
Tax , in which the said High Court held that the Assessing Officer
could not grant the depreciation allowance when it was not
claimed by the assessee as there is no provision by which
depreciation could be fictionally deemed to have been claimed
and granted. It would be pertinent to point out that this judgment
of the High Court was in the light of Section 32 of the Act which
stood at the material time and this very provision existed even in
respect of Assessment Years 1991-92 and 1992-93 with which we
are concerned. Therefore, the High Court took cognizance of the
said judgment. The High Court also noted another judgment of its
own Court in Guindy Machine Tools P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of
3
Income Tax , which had followed judgment of this Court in
4
Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Mahendra Mills wherein it
was held that the provision in respect of depreciation was for the
2 (2001) 252 ITR 590
3 (2002) 254 ITR 780
4 (2000) 243 ITR 56
Civil Appeal Nos. 1812-1813 of 2005 Page 5 of 22
benefit of the assessee and if the assessee does not wish to avail
the said benefit for some reason, it could not be forced upon him.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid judgments, the High Court
observed that the real issue was not whether the assessee could
be compelled to claim depreciation, but, if he fails to claim, what
would be the order of priority between unabsorbed depreciation
allowance and unabsorbed investment allowance. On this
purported 'real' issue, the High Court mentioned that since
unabsorbed depreciation allowance gets precedence over the
unabsorbed investment allowance under the provisions of the Act,
which has been held by various High Courts (and those
judgments of the High Courts are taken note of), it is the
unabsorbed depreciation allowance which would be set off first.
10) Arguments before us remain the same which were advanced by
the assessee as well as the Revenue in the High Court. In order
to appreciate these arguments and to answer the controversy
which has arisen, it is apposite to take note of provisions of
Section 32 of the Act, as existed at the relevant time. The portion
with which we are concerned reads as under:
“32. (1) In respect of depreciation of buildings,
machinery, plant or furniture owned by the
assessee and used for the purposes of the
business or profession, the following deductions
shall, subject to the provisions of section 34, be
Civil Appeal Nos. 1812-1813 of 2005 Page 6 of 22
allowed-
xx xx xx
(2) Where, in the assessment of the assessee
[(or, if the assessee is a registered firm or an
unregistered firm assessed as a registered firm,
in the assessment of its partners)] full effect
cannot be given to any allowance [under clause
(ii) of sub-section (1)] in any previous year,
owing to there being no profits or gains
chargeable for that previous year, or owing to
the profits or gains chargeable being less than
the allowance, then, subject to the provisions of
sub-section (2) of section 72 and sub-section (3)
of section 73, the allowance or part of the
allowance to which effect has not been given, as
the case may be, shall be added to the amount
of the allowance for depreciation for the
following previous year and deemed to be part
of that allowance, or if there is no such
allowance for that previous year, be deemed to
be the allowance for that previous year, and so
on for the succeeding previous years.”
11) This Section deals with depreciation in respect of certain assets
which are mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 32 and owned
wholly or partly by the assessee and used for the purpose of
business or profession. The nature of deductions that is to be
allowed is also mentioned in sub-section (1). We are not directly
concerned with this provision inasmuch as it is not in dispute that
the assessee herein was entitled to depreciation on its assets and
the amount of depreciation is also not in dispute. As mentioned
above, in fact, the depreciation of earlier orders could not be
utilized by the assessee in those years. Since the provisions of
the Act permit the assessee to accumulate the unabsorbed
Civil Appeal Nos. 1812-1813 of 2005 Page 7 of 22
depreciation of the previous years with right to the assessee to
choose the same in subsequent years, the assessee herein had
unabsorbed depreciation of the previous years. This is so
stipulated in sub-section (2) of Section 32., which has already
been noted earlier.
12) As per the aforesaid provision, the depreciation allowance or part
thereof to which effect has not been given in a particular
assessment year owing to there being no profits or gains
chargeable for that previous years or owing to profits and gains
chargeable being less than the allowance, such unabsorbed
depreciation allowance is to be added to the amount of the
allowance for depreciation for the following previous year and it is
'deemed to be part of that allowance for that previous year or the
succeeding previous years, as the case may be'. This is,
however, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 72
and sub-section (3) of Section 73 of the Act.
13) What follows from the above is that in case of loss in the business
income or insufficient profits to absorb the depreciation allowance
permitted by this Section, because of which reason depreciation
allowance or some part thereof remains unabsorbed, it may be
carried forward under this sub-section to the following year and
Civil Appeal Nos. 1812-1813 of 2005 Page 8 of 22
set off against that year's profit, and so on for succeeding years.
There is an amendment in the aforesaid provision with effect from
April 01, 1996, which shall be taken note of subsequently at an
appropriate stage. However, as per the provision which existed
during the relevant period and extracted above, the carried
forward depreciation allowance is deemed to be a part of, and
stands on exactly the same footing as the current depreciation for
the assessment year. The unabsorbed depreciation of the past
years, thus, by legal fiction, becomes the depreciation of the year
in question and can be set off against income chargeable under
any head. There is, thus, actual depreciation which is to be
calculated in that particular assessment year. To this, unabsorbed
depreciation is to be added by the application of aforesaid
deeming provision and this entire depreciation, namely, that of the
current year as well as unabsorbed depreciation of the previous
years, can be allowed as depreciation in that particular
assessment year or succeeding assessment years. This is
subject to the provisions of Sections 72(2) and 73(3) of the Act.
Section 72 deals with carried forward and set off of business loss
under the head 'business or profession' . This carried forward loss
can be set off only against the profits of any business or
profession and is carried forward only for a period of eight years.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1812-1813 of 2005 Page 9 of 22
On the other hand, insofar as carry forward of depreciation
allowance to any subsequent year is concerned, the same is
without any time limit. Sub-section (2) of Section 72 stipulates
that where any allowance or part thereof is under sub-section (2)
of Section 32 or sub-section (4) of Section 35 and is to be carried
forward, effect shall first be given to the provisions of this section.
Section 73, on the other hand, deals with loss in speculation
business and subsequently mentions that such loss of a
speculation business shall not be set off except against profits
and gains, if any, of another speculation business. Thus, losses
of speculation business can be set off only against profits and
gains of another speculation business and not against profits
earned from other kinds of businesses. Here sub-section (3) of
Section 73, which finds mention in Section 32(2), states that
provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 72 shall also apply in
relation to speculation business. We are not concerned with the
aforesaid situation arising out of sub-section (2) of Section 72 or
sub-section (3) of Section 73. However, the same are mentioned
for the purpose of clarity as there is a reference to these
provisions in Section 32(2). Insofar as the instant case is
concerned, it depends upon the meaning that is to be given to the
deeming provision, as explained above.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1812-1813 of 2005 Page 10 of 22
14) Before we discuss this effect, let us take note of some of the
nuances regarding claim of depreciation allowance, which have
been laid down by judicial pronouncements on interpretation of
this provision.
15) It has been the consistent view of the Courts that unabsorbed
depreciation allowance should be allowed before the unabsorbed
investment allowance. To put it differently, unabsorbed
depreciation is to be given precedence and is allowed to be set off
first. Some of the High Courts had earlier taken the view that this
would be so even if the assessee had not claimed the
unabsorbed depreciation. It is the necessary consequence of the
scheme of various provisions of the Act. Section 32A of the Act,
which deals with investment allowance, was inserted by the
Finance Act, 1976 with effect from 01.04.1976. According to
Circular No. 202 dated 05.07.1976 issued by CBDT [(1976) 105
ITR St 17], the combined effect of the provisions of Sections 32,
32A, 33, 33A and 72 is that in a case where there are allowances
in the nature of depreciation allowance, investment allowance,
development rebate, development allowance and losses, such
allowances and losses would be deductible in the order given
below, in cases where the profits are insufficient to absorb all of
Civil Appeal Nos. 1812-1813 of 2005 Page 11 of 22
them:
(i) Current depreciation (Section 32(1))
(ii) Carried forward losses of earlier years (Section 72(1))
(iii) Unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years (Section 32(2))
(iv) Unabsorbed development rebate of earlier years (Section
33(2)(ii)
(v) Current development rebate (Section 33(2)(i))
(vi) Unabsorbed development allowance of earlier years
(Section 3A(2)(ii))
(vii) Current development allowance (Section 33A(2)(ii))
(viii) Unabsorbed investment allowance of earlier years (Section
32A(3)(ii))
(ix) Current investment allowance (Section 33A(3)(i))
It emerges from sub-section (3) of Section 32A that unabsorbed
investment allowance takes precedence over current investment
allowance. However, this Court in Mahendra Mills (supra) took
the view that since the provision for depreciation is a benefit
which enures to the assessee, if the assessee does not wish to
avail of that benefit for some reason, such a benefit cannot be
forced upon him. In that case, the Court held that the language of
the provisions of Sections 32 and 34 of the Act is specific and
admits of no ambiguity. Section 32 allows depreciation as
deduction, subject to the provisions of Section 34. Section 34
Civil Appeal Nos. 1812-1813 of 2005 Page 12 of 22
provides that deduction under Section 32 shall be allowed only if
the prescribed particulars have been furnished. It was specifically
held that there is no mandatory duty on the officer to allow
depreciation if the assessee does not want to claim that. The
provision for claim of depreciation is certainly for the benefit of the
assessee. If he does not wish to avail of that benefit for some
reason, the benefit cannot be forced upon him. It is for the
assessee to see if the claim of depreciation is to his advantage.
Income under the head “Profits and gains of business or
Profession” is chargeable to income-tax under Section 28 and
income under Section 29 is to be computed in accordance with
the provisions contained in Sections 30 to 43A. The argument
that since Section 32 provides for depreciation it has to be
allowed in computing the income of the assessee cannot, in all
circumstances, be accepted in view of the bar contained in
Section 34. If Section 34 is not satisfied and the particulars are
not furnished by the assessee, his claim for depreciation under
Section 32 cannot be allowed. Section 29 is, thus, to be read with
reference to other provisions of the Act. It is not in itself a
complete code.
16) This principle, thus, is grounded in the reasoning that there is no
Civil Appeal Nos. 1812-1813 of 2005 Page 13 of 22
provision by which depreciation could be fictionally deemed to
have been claimed and granted and it is to be specifically claimed
by the assessee. Further, when claiming of depreciation is a
privilege given to the assessee, it cannot be turned into a
disadvantage even when the assessee does not claim the
depreciation. Therefore, option in this behalf rests with the
assessee.
17) In the impugned judgment as well, the High Court accepts the
aforesaid legal position as this is so decided by this Court in
Mahendra Mills's case (supra) and is a binding precedent.
However, the aforesaid judgment is not followed on the ground
that real issue is something else. Such an issue, though already
noted above, is stated in para 10.1 of the impugned judgment,
which reads as under:
“10.1 But, in the case on hand, it is not the issue
whether the assessee could be compelled to claim
depreciation allowance, but, if he fails to claim,
what would be the order of priority between
unabsorbed depreciation allowance and
unabsorbed investment allowance.”
18) Strangely, the issue is somewhat different, namely, when the
depreciation allowance is not claimed, can it be said that the
assessee has failed to claim and in that case what would be the
position? According to us, there is no question of failing to claim.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1812-1813 of 2005 Page 14 of 22
Situation in such an event would be that depreciation is not
claimed at all and, therefore, the position mentioned in Mahendra
Mills's case (supra) would follow. To this extent we find that it
was a wrong question posed by the High Court, which led to a
wrong answer.
19) However, the matter does not rest there. In the present case, the
assessee in fact claimed the depreciation allowance insofar as it
pertained to the current year. At the same time, it did not want to
claim the set off of the unabsorbed depreciation allowance of the
previous years. In such situation, the question is as to whether it
is open to the assessee to invoke the provisions of Section 32 of
the Act by claiming depreciation of the current year, but at the
same time choose not to make a claim of set off of unabsorbed
depreciation allowance of the previous years. As noted above, by
legal fiction unabsorbed depreciation becomes depreciation of the
year in question and gets added to the depreciation of the current
year. If that be so, is it the right of the assessee to partly invoke
the provisions of Section 32 when it comes to depreciation of the
current year and still claim that it has right not to claim
unabsorbed depreciation allowance? On a plain reading of
Section 32, it does not appear to be the position. Once the entire
depreciation, namely, unabsorbed depreciation allowance of the
Civil Appeal Nos. 1812-1813 of 2005 Page 15 of 22
previous year gets merged into the depreciation of the current
year, it would become an integral part thereof. Legal fiction
makes it one whole thereby making it possible to the assessee to
claim set off of unabsorbed carried forward depreciation as well.
A fortiorari, bifurcation thereof with option to claim depreciation of
current year only and contending at the same time that portion of
unabsorbed carried forward depreciation is not to be thrusted
upon him as it is not claimed, would not be permissible.
20) Notwithstanding the above, the endeavour of the learned counsel
for the assessee is to show that the assessee has such a right. In
this direction it is argued that though by legal fiction unabsorbed
depreciation allowance is carried forward to the assessment year
in question and becomes a part of depreciation allowance of that
year, it retains its identity inasmuch as it is brought forward only
because of deeming provision which is to be applied to that
limited extent and no further. In order to support this hypothesis,
learned counsel referred to the judgment in Commissioner of
Income-Tax, Kanpur v. Mother India Refrigeration Industries
5
P. Ltd. where nature of carried forward depreciation allowance
on application of deeming provision is explained by the Court.
She specifically referred to the following discussion in this behalf:
5 (1985) 155 ITR 711
Civil Appeal Nos. 1812-1813 of 2005 Page 16 of 22
“Having regard to the aforesaid rival contentions, it
will be clear that the real issue that arises for our
consideration in this case is whether, on a proper
construction of the relevant provisions of the
concerned enactment, unabsorbed carried forward
losses should have preference over current
depreciation in the matter of set off or is the
position vice versa while computing the total
income of an assessee in the concerned
assessment year? And the answer to this question
depends on what is the true scope and purpose of
the legal fiction created under proviso (b) to s.
10(2)(vi) of the 1922 Act or under s. 32(2) of the
1961 Act.
At the outset, it may be stated that a close
scrutiny of the relevant provisions of the 1922 Act
as also the 1961 Act clearly shows that the
computation of income under the head “Profits and
gains of business” of any particular assessment
year is required to be done after making certain
allowances specified in sub-s.(2) of s. 10 of the
1922 Act and after allowing certain deductions in
accordance with the provisions contained in ss. 30
to 43A of the 1961 Act; in other words, it is the net
profits and gains after the specified deductions are
made that are subjected to tax; one of such
deductions pertains to depreciation allowance at
the prescribed rate of percentage of the written
down value of the business asset; and this is
provided in s. 10(2)(vi) of the 1922 Act and in s.
32(1) of the 1961 Act. Up to this stage of
computation, no question of either carry forward of
unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years or
carry forward of unabsorbed business losses of
earlier years arises. In other words, the normal
accountancy principle has to be applied in arriving
at the net income from business for that year by
debiting the current year's depreciation. The
question is whether any deviation from this normal
rule of accountancy is contemplated by proviso (b)
to s. 10(2)(vi) read with proviso (b) to s. 24(2) of the
1922 Act or by s. 32(2) read with s. 72(2) of the
1961 Act, and it is here that the aspect of proper
construction of these provisions arises. Dealing
with the provisions of the 1922 Act first, it will be
clear that proviso (b) to s. 10(2)(vi) is in two parts
Civil Appeal Nos. 1812-1813 of 2005 Page 17 of 22
and provides for two things; its first part provides
for a carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation and
its second part provides for clubbing the said
carried forward depreciation with the current year's
depreciation and deeming the aggregate to be the
current year's depreciation. However, carrying
forward of the unabsorbed depreciation and the
deeming provision in proviso (b) are not absolute
but are subject to the proviso (b) to s. 24(2). Had
proviso (b) to s. 24(2) not been enacted by the
Legislature, the result would have been that the
aggregate depreciation would have been deducted
first out of the profits and gains in preference to
unabsorbed business losses which might have
been carried forward under s. 24(2) but as such
losses can be carried forward only for limited
number of years, the assessee would in certain
circumstances have in his books losses which he
might not be able to set off even within the
time-limit during which the set off is permitted. In
order to prevent such a situation, the Legislature
enacted the proviso (b) to s. 24(2). And proviso (b)
to s. 24(2) expressly stated “where depreciation
allowance is, under cl. (b) of the proviso to cl. (vi) of
sub-s. (2) of s. 10, also to be carried forward, effect
shall first be given to the provisions of this
sub-section”. In other words, it clearly provides
that in the matter of set off, the unabsorbed
depreciation that is required to be carried forward
under proviso (b) to s. 10(2)(vi) and no preference
over the current depreciation is intended.
It is true that proviso (b) to s. 10(2)(vi)
creates a legal fiction and under that fiction,
unabsorbed depreciation either with or without
current year's depreciation is deemed to be the
current year's depreciation but it is well settled, as
has been observed by this court in Bengal
Immunity Company Limited v. State of Bihar [1955]
2 SCR 603, 606; 6 STC 446, that the legal fictions
are created only for some definite purpose and
these must be limited to that purpose and should
not be extended beyond that legitimate field.
Clearly, the avowed purpose of the legal fiction
created by the deeming provision contained in
proviso (b) to s. 10(2)(vi) is to make the
unabsorbed carried forward depreciation partake
Civil Appeal Nos. 1812-1813 of 2005 Page 18 of 22
the same character as the current depreciation in
the following year, so that it is available, unlike
unabsorbed carried forward business loss, for
being set off against other heads of income of that
year.”
21) It is clear from the above that though the question there was
different, namely, precedence of carried forward business loss
over the carried forward unabsorbed depreciation or vice versa ,
what is important is the interpretation that is given to Section
32(2) of the Act and particularly the deeming provision thereof
which creates legal fiction. The Court clarified that the avowed
purpose of the legal fiction created by deeming provision
contained in Section 32(2) of the Act is to make the unabsorbed
carried forward depreciation partake the same character as the
current depreciation in the following year, so that it is available,
unlike unabsorbed carried forward business loss for being set off
against other heads of income of that year. On that basis, the
Court answered that since unabsorbed carried forward
depreciation had become part of the current depreciation, the
entire depreciation had to be given preference (current as well as
unabsorbed carried forward depreciation) over unabsorbed
carried forward losses.
22) We do not understand as to how the aforesaid judgment helps the
Civil Appeal Nos. 1812-1813 of 2005 Page 19 of 22
assessee. On the contrary, it goes against the assessee while
answering the question which has arisen in the instant appeals.
Once the unabsorbed carried forward depreciation has become a
part of the depreciation of the current year, it is not open to the
assessee to bifurcate the two again and exercising its choice to
claim the depreciation of the current year under Section 32(1) of
the Act and take a position that since unabsorbed depreciation of
the previous years is not claimed, it cannot be thrusted upon the
assessee. The position would have been different if the assessee
had not claimed any depreciation at all. However, once the
depreciation is claimed and while giving deductions the
depreciation is to be set off against the profits of the current year
prior to the unabsorbed carried forward investment allowance, it is
the entire depreciation, namely, the depreciation of the current
year as well as the unabsorbed carried forward depreciation,
which is to be taken into account as by virtue of the fiction created
under Section 32(2) of the Act, carried forward depreciation also
partakes the character of depreciation of the current year. This
scrambled egg cannot be unscrambled now. Otherwise, it would
amount to negating the legal fiction that is created by the said
provision, even to the limited extent. In fact, the case falls within
the ambit of the said limited extent of legal fiction and gets
Civil Appeal Nos. 1812-1813 of 2005 Page 20 of 22
covered by it.
23) Once we read the provision in the aforesaid manner, the aid of
other interpretative tools which is sought to be taken by the
learned counsel for the assessee, namely, the provision is to be
given liberal construction; the scheme of the Act envisages giving
preference in the matter of deduction from income to those
expiring by afflux of time, etc. would become irrelevant and pales
into insignificance.
24) The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is to decide the question
formulated against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue,
though for our reasons contained in this judgment. The appeals
are, accordingly, dismissed with costs.
.............................................J.
(A.K. SIKRI)
.............................................J.
(ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 15, 2015.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1812-1813 of 2005 Page 21 of 22
ITEM NO.1B COURT NO.13 SECTION IIIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 1812-1813/2005
SESHASAYEE PAPER & BOARD LTD. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Respondent(s)
WITH C.A.No. 4498/2015 @
SLP(C) No. 15251/2008
Date : 15/05/2015 These appeals were called on for judgment
today.
For Appellant(s) Mr. Pratap Venugopal,Adv.
Ms. Supriya Jain,Adv.
Ms. Niharika,Adv.for
M/s. K. J. John & Co.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Sadhana Sandhu,Adv.
Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv.
Mr. B. V. Balaram Das,Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K.Sikri pronounced the
judgment of this Court comprising of His Lordship and Hon'ble
Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman.
Leave granted in SLP(C) No. 15251/2008.
The appeals are dismissed with costs in terms of
the signed judgment.
(SUMAN WADHWA)
AR-cum-PS
(SUMAN JAIN)
COURT MASTER
Signed Reportable Judgment is placed on the file.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1812-1813 of 2005 Page 22 of 22