Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
PETITIONER:
NEW SAVAN SUGAR & GUR REFINING CO. LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CALCUTTA
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
19/02/1969
BENCH:
RAMASWAMI, V.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMI, V.
SHAH, J.C.
GROVER, A.N.
CITATION:
1969 AIR 1062 1969 SCR (3) 761
1969 SCC (1) 621
CITATOR INFO :
D 1988 SC 460 (12)
ACT:
Income-tax Act (11 of 1922), ss. 10(2)(vi-a) and (vi-b) and
12(3) and (4)-Scope of s. 10-If cls. (vi-a) and (vi-b) of s.
10(2) could be read by implication into s. 12.
HEADNOTE:
The assessee-company, carrying on the business of crushing
sugar cane and gur refining, apprehending loss, entered into
a lease with another company. Under cl. (7) of the
indentures the consideration of the lease. was royalty
payable on the manufacture of sugar and molasses and was,
subject to a minimum payment of Rs. 65,000 per annum. The
lease was. for a term of 5 years commencing from 1st June
1945 with an option to continue for a further term of 5
years and thereafter with two further options of 5 years on
the same terms and conditions subject to payment of higher
rates of royalty. Clauses 2 to 5 provided that the existing
machinery which was owned by the lessor could not be removed
and that the lessee would be entitled to set up additional
machinery without interference from the lessor and that on
the termination of the lease the lessee would be entitled to
remove the same without causing any damage to the property
demised. The effect of cls. 11 to 14 was that the lessor
would have no concern with the production of the factory
which was the principal part of the business previously
carried on by the lessor. In assessment proceedings for the
assessment year 1955-56, the assessee contended that the
lease was a lease of a commercial asset and therefore the
income arising from it should be assessed under s. 10 of the
Income-tax Act, 1922, and hence, the assessee should be
allowed depreciation and development rebate in accordance
with cls. (vi-a) and (vi-b) of s. 10(2). The department and
the High Court rejected the assessee’s contention and held
that the income was liable to be assessed under s. 12 as
’income from other sources’ and that no additional
depreciation and development rebate could be allowed.
In appeal to this Court it was contended that : (1) the
income of the assessee was liable to be assessed under s. 10
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
of the Income-tax Act and, not under s. 12; and (2) Since
the benefit under cl. (vi) of s. 10(2) is allowed to the
assessee under s. 12(3), the assessee should be held to be
entitled to additional depreciation and development rebate
under cls. (vi-a) and (vi-b) even if the assessment was
under s. 12, on the ground that those two clauses are
ancillary to cl. (vi) and should be taken to have been
included in s. 12(3) along with cl. (vi).
HELD : (1) The income of the assessee could not be
characterised’ as income from the activity of the assessee
carrying on any business and’ was therefore, liable to be
assessed under s. 12 and not under s. 10 of the, income-tax
Act. [769 F-G]
The primary condition for the application of s. 10 is that
the tax is payable by an assessee under the head ’profits
and gains of business’ in respect of business carried on by
him. When an assessee does not carry on business at all, s.
10 cannot be applicable and the income that he receives
cannot bear the character of profits of business. [769 D-E]
762
In the present case, a scrutiny of all the clauses of the
indenture of lease, shows that the intention of the assessee
was to go out of the business altogether, so far as the
factory and machinery were concerned with effect from 1st
June 1945, to part with the entire machinery of the factory
and the premises with the purpose of earning rental income,
and to use the income arising from the royalty in its
capacity as owner of the factory. It was not the intention
of the assessee to treat the factory and machinery as a
commercial concern or asset during the subsistence of the
lease. The provision for payment of minimum royalty
indicates that the assessee had no direct interest in the
production of the factory. The royalty was not paid for the
production in the factory. There was no direct nexus
between the income of the assessee and the production of the
factory. The production was only a measure of the royalty
to be paid and had nothing to do with the character of the
payment as a receipt from business or from other sources.
[769 C-D, E-F]
Commissioner of Excess Profit Tax, Bombay City v. Shri
Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd. 20 I.T.R. 451 (S.C.) and Narain
Swadeshi Weaving Mills v. Commissioner of Excess Profits
Tax, 26 I.T.R. 765 (S.C.), distinguished.
(2)Clause (vi-a), which was inserted in the Act in 1949,
gives additional depreciation allowance over and above the
initial allowance which was previously available under cl.
(vi) in respect of buildings newly erected and new machinery
and plant but not furniture installed after 31st March 1948.
The additional allowance is confined to not more than 5
successive assessments falling within the period from 1st
April 1949 and 31st March 1959. It is deductible in
determining the written down value, unlike the initial
allowance granted under cl. (vi). Clause (vi-b) was
inserted by the Finance Act, 1955. It grants development
rebate in respect of machinery and plant provided that the
machinery or plant is new and has been installed after 31st
March 1954, and provided further that it is used wholly for
the purpose of the assessee’s business and the particulars
prescribed for the purpose of cl. (vi) have been furnished.
Clauses (Vi-a) and (vi-b) thus introduce a new scheme and
cannot be treated as an integral part of cl. (vi) by
implication. Further, it is not permissible for the Court
to read the-clauses by implication into s. 12(3) and (4),
because, the clauses were not specifically engrafted by
Parliament into s. 12 while amending s. 10(2). [771 E-H;
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
772 A-B] Kumar Kamalaranjan Roy v. Secretary of State, L.R.
66 I.A. 110, referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1593 of 1968.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated, September 20, 1963
of the Calcutta High Court in Income-tax Reference’ No. 23
of 1960.
Sachin Chaudhari, T. A. Ramachandran and D. N. Gupta, for
the appellant.
D.Narsaraju, R. N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma, for the
respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ramaswami, J This appeal is brought by certificate from the
judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated 20th September,
1963 in Income Tax Reference No. 23 of 1960.
763
The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the assessee was
carrying on the business of crushing sugar-cane and gur
refining. M/s. Andrew Yule & Co. were acting as the
managing agents of the assessee. In a letter dated 5th
February, 1946 addressed to the share-holders of the
assessee the managing agents referred, to the alarming
increase of Government interference in the affairs of the
sugar industry in Bihar and the increase of wages of the
workers, as well as the levy of a cess of Government and
deterioration in the cane crops. In view of this state of
affairs, the managing agents apprehended a loss and
suggested that the company’s affairs should be put on a
"less discouraging basis" by accepting the offer of a lease
of the company as a running concern from the Standard
Refinery & Distillery Ltd. At an extra-ordinary general
meeting of the share-holders of the assessee company held on
5th March, 1946 it was decided to authorise the directors to
enter into a lease with the said Standard Refinery &
Distillery Ltd. By an indenture of 15th March, 1948 the
lease was executed to come into effect retrospectively from
1st June, 1945. The term of the lease was originally for 5
years commencing from 1st June 1945 with an option to the
lessee to continue for further five years and thereafter two
further options to the lessee, each for five years, on the
same terms and conditions, but subject to the payment of
higher rates of royalties and also subject to the option on
the part of the assessee company to terminate the lease by a
resolution of the shareholders of the company to be held
before 30th November in any year after the first two years.
This option of termination of the lease was not exercised by
the assessee company. The consideration of the lease as
described in clause 7 of the indenture was royalty payable
on the manufacture of sugar and molasses. The royalty on
sugar was to be at the rate of Rs. 75 per hundred maunds of
sugar manufactured for the first and second term of five
years, at the rate of Rs. 82.50 per hundred maunds of sugar
manufactured for the third five year period and at Rs. 90
for the fourth five year period. The royalty on molasses
was to be calculated at 3 pies per maund on all molasses
sold during each year of the original period or the renewed
period of the lease. The computation of the royalty was
subject to a minimum payment of Rs. 65,000 per annum.
For the assessment year 1955-56 the relevant accounting year
of the assessee ended on 31st May, 1954. In the assessment
proceedings for 1955-56 the assessee’s main contention was
that the lease granted under the indenture of 15th March,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
1948 was a lease of a commercial asset and therefore the
income arising from the lease should be assessed under S. 10
of the Income Tax Act and the assessee should be allowed
depreciation and development rebate in accordance with
clause (vi-a) and clause (vi-b) of sub-section (2) of
section 10 of the Income
764
Tax Act. The Income Tax Officer assessed the income under
S. 12 of the Act as being income under the head "other
sources" and held that no additional depreciation or
development rebate could be allowed as claimed by the
assessee. According to the assessee, the, income derived
from the lease of the sugar factory was income from business
because the factory was leased as a going concern and the
rent of the building, machinery, plant and spare parts was
fixed at a certain rate per maund of sugar produced, and at
a certain rate per maund of molasses sold. On appeal, the
Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that it was a simple
lease of the building and machinery in a sugar factory, and
as such the method of payment based on production could not
affect the character and nature of the income derived under
the said lease. In further appeal the Appellate Tribunal
came to the conclusion that on the facts stated the case
fell under section 12 and not under section 10 and that
since sub-section (3) of section 12 did not include clauses
(vi-a) and (vi-b) of section 10(2) the claim of additional
depreciation and development rebate could not be allowed.
At the instance of the assessee the Appellate Tribunal
stated a case to the High Court on the following questions
of law under section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922
(hereinafter referred to as the Act) :
"(1) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the income of the
assessee company was liable to be assessed
under section 12 of the Indian Income Tax Act
and not under section 10 of the said Act ?
(2)Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, additional
depreciation and development rebate can be
allowed as a deduction ?"
The High Court answered both the, questions
against the assessee holding that the income
was liable to be assessed under section 12 and
that no additional depreciation and
development rebate could be allowed.
Section 10 of the Act stood as follows at the
material time
"10. (1) The tax shall be payable by an
assessee under the head ’profit sand gains of
business, profession or vocation’ in respect
of the profit or gain of any business,
profession or vocation carried on by him.
(2)Such profits or gains shall be computed
after making the following allowances, namely
(vi)in respect of depreciation of such
buildings, machinery, plant or furniture being
the property of the assessee, a sum
equivalent, where the assets are ships
765
other than ships ordinarily plying on inland
waters, to such percentage on the original
cost thereof to the assessee as may in any
case or class of cases be prescribed and in
any other case, to such percentage on the
written down value thereof as may in any case
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
or class of cases be prescribed :
and where the buildings have been newly
erected, of the machinery or plant being new,
not being machinery or plant entitled to the
development rebate under, clause (vi-b), has
been installed, after the 31st day of March,
1945, a further sum (which shall however not
be deductible in determining the written down
value for the purposes of this clause) in
respect of the year of erection or
installation equivalent--
(a) in the case of buildings the erection of
which is begun and completed between the 1st
day of April 1946 and the 31st day of March
1956 (both days inclusive), to fifteen per
cent of the cost thereof to the assessee;
(b) in the case of other buildings, to ten
per cent of the cost thereof to the. assessee;
(c) in the case of machinery or plant, to
twenty per cent of the cost thereof to the
assessee;
Provided that-
765
(c)the aggregate of all allowances in respect
of depreciation made under this clause and
clause (vi-a) or under any Act repealed
hereby, or under the Indian Income Tax Act,
1886 (II of 1886), shall, in no case, exceed
the original cost to the assessee of the
buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, as
the case may be;
(vi-a) in respect of depreciation of buildings
newly erected, or of machinery or plant being
new which has been installed, after the 31st
day of March, 1948, a further sum (which shall
be deductible in determining the written down
value) equal to the amount admissible under
clause (vi) (exclusive of the extra allowance
for double or multiple shift working of the
machinery or plant and the initial
depreciation allowance admissible under that
clause for the first year of erection of the
building or the installation of the machinery
or Plant) in not more than five successive
assessments for the financial years next
following the previous year
Sup/69-14
766
in which such buildings are erected and such
machinery and plant installed and falling
within the period commencing on the 1st day of
April 1949 and ending on the 31st day
of March, 1959;
(vi-b) in respect of machinery or plant being
new, which has been installed after the 31st
day of March, 1954, and which is wholly used
for the purposes of the business carried on by
the assessee, a sum by way of development
rebate in respect of the year of installation
equivalent to twenty-five per cent of the
actual cost of such machinery or plant to the
assessee;
Provided that no allowance under this clause
shall be made unless the particulars
prescribed for the purpose of clause (vi) have
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
been furnished by the assessee in respect of
such machinery or plant;
Section 12 was to the following effect
12. (1). The tax shall be payable by an
assessee under the head ’Income from other
sources’ in respect of income, profits and
gains of every kind which may be included in
his total income (if not included under any of
the preceding heads).
(2)Such income, profits and gains shall be
computed after making allowance for any
expenditure (not being in the nature of
capital expenditure) incurred solely for the
purpose of making or earning such income,
profits or gains.
(3)Where an assessee lets on hire machinery,
plant or furniture belonging to him, he shall
be entitled to allowances in accordance with
the provisions of clauses (iv), (v), (vi) and
(vii) of sub-section (2) of section 10.
(4)Where an assessee lets on hire machinery,
plant or furniture belonging to him and also
buildings, and the letting of the buildings is
inseparable from the letting of the said
machinery, plant or furniture, he shall be
entitled to allowances in accordance with the
767
provisions of clauses (iv), (v), (vi) and
(vii) of subsection (2) of section 10 in
respect of such buildings".
The main contention of the assessee was that
the lease as contemplated in the indenture
dated 15th March, 1948 was a lease of a
commercial asset, and, therefore, the income
arising from the lease should be assessed
under section 10(1) of the Act and not under
section 12(1). In order to examine the
validity of this argument it is necessary to
set out the relevant clauses of the indenture
of lease. Clause ( 1) of the lease provided
that the lease was for a term of five years
commencing from 1st June 1945 with an option
to continue for a further term of five years
and thereafter two further options of five
years in each case on the same terms and
conditions subject to higher payment of rates
of royalties.
Clause 2:
The lessee shall be entitled to run the said
sugar factory and all other machinery annexed
to the same and use all the tools and
implements, buildings and premises, offices,
and erections and utensils and all other
things which are now in or upon the said
premises and which may be added from time to
time thereto provided always that the lessees
shall not at any time remove the plant and/or
machinery etc. hereby demised or any part
thereof from the said premises elsewhere for
the purpose of or in connection with the
lessees’ other interests.
Clause 3 :
The lessees shall at the time of taking over
possession of the factory from the lessors be
entitled free of payment to the goods already
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
manufactured during the current crushing
season, i.e. 1945-46 or in the process of
manufacture and/or to be hereafter
manufactured by the lessees and the lessees
shall have absolute discretion to sell and
deal with the same in such manner as they
think fit and proper.
Clause 5:
The lessees shall also be entitled to erect,
construct and maintain any other machinery as
the lessees may think fit and proper. All
machinery brought in and erected by the
lessees would remain the lessees’ property and
after the termination of the lease the lessees
shall be entitled to remove the same provided
always that the lessees shall forthwith repair
and make good all damage caused to the demised
premises by such removal of the lessees’
machinery.
768
Clause 7
Clause 7 provides for the payment of royalty.
The royalty on sugar was to be computed at the
rate of Rupees Seventy-five per 100 maunds of
sugar manufactured for the first five years as
well as next five years then at the rate of
Rupees eighty two and annas eight per 100
maunds of sugar manufactured for the third
five years and Rs. 90/- for the fourth five
years. The royalty on molasses was computed
at three pies per maund on all molasses sold
during each year of the original lease period
and any renewals thereof subject to the
payment of a minimum royalty of Rs. 6,500/per
annum.
Clause 8 :
This clause provides that the lessee shall in
addition to the royalty reserved be
responsible for all the running expenses of
the factory including salaries and wages and
all factory staff and labour and shall pay all
sugar excise duty etc. excepting the ground
rents payable to the landlords and taxes on
income chargeable to the lessors and shall
fully reimburse the lessors in respect of such
expenses which have already been incurred by
the lessors since the first day of One thou-
sand nine hundred and forty five and property
tax.
Clause 17 :
(a)The lessors will keep the demised premises
insured to the full value thereof and shall
pay all expenses which will be incurred for
insuring the demised premises.
(b)The lessors shall pay all expenses of
running the lessors’ company e.g. Directors
fees, Audit fees, Ground rents etc. but not
the running expenses of the factory and
premises hereby demised and shall also pay for
all the expenditure for additions, alterations
breakdown and/or renewals and replacement of
capital nature (i.e. dubitable to block
account) to buildings and machineries etc. and
other similar expenses of a capital nature on
the demised premises.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
It appears from clauses 2 and 5 that the existing machinery
which was. owned by the lessor could not be removed and that
the lessee would be entitled to set up additional machinery
without interference from the lessor and that on the
termination of the lease the lessee would be entitled to
remove the same without causing any damage to the property
demised. Clause 3 con-
769
templates that if during the period 1945-46 the lessors sell
the commodity manufactured the price thereof should go back,
to the lessee. Mr. Choudhury referred to clause 6 which
entitled the lessee to use the railway siding during the
period of the lease. But the right of use of railway siding
by the lessee under this clause cannot in any way be
construed as the exercise of control over the business of
the assessee. The provision for minimum royalty of Rs.
65,000/- per annum indicates that the assessee had no direct
interest in the production of the factory. The cumulative
effect of clauses 11, 12, 13 and 14 is that the lessor will
have no concern with the production of the factory which is
the principal part of the business, previously carried on by
the lessor. The provisions in clause 17 are that the
lessors shall keep the demised premises insured to the full
value and to repair and replace the machines which are of
capital nature. On a scrutiny of all the clauses of the
indenture of lease, our conclusion is that the intention of
the assessee was to part with the entire machinery of the
factory and the premises with the obvious purpose of earning
rental income. It was not the intention of the assessee to
treat the factory and machinery etc. as a commercial concern
during the subsistence of the lease. The primary condition
for the application of S. 10 of the Act is that the tax is
payable by an assessee under the head "profits and gains of
business" in respect of business carried on by him. When an
assessee does not carry on business at all, section 10
cannot be applicable and the income that he receives cannot
bear the character of profits of business. As we have
already shown there is no direct nexus between the income of
the assessee and the production of the factory. The royalty
payable to the assessee was not paid under clause 7 of the
indenture of lease for the production in the factory. The
production was only a measure of the royalty to be paid and,
in any event, the measure of payment had nothing to do with
the character of the payment as a receipt from business or
from other sources. It follows that in the circumstances of
this case the income of the assessee cannot be characterised
as income from the activity of the assessee carrying on any
business. The High Court was therefore right in holding
that the income of the assessee was liable to be assessed
under section 12 and not under section 1 0 of the Act.
On behalf of the assessee reference was made to the decision
of this Court in Commissioner of Excess Profit Tax, Bombay
City v. Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd.(1) in which the
respondent company which was formed for the purpose of
manufacturing silk cloth installed a plant for dying silk
yarn as a part of its business during the relevant charging
accounting period. Owing to the difficulty in obtaining
silk yam on account of the war it
(1) 20 I.T.R. 451.
770
could not make use of this plant which had remained idle for
some time. In August, 1943, the plant was let out to
another company on a monthly rent. The question arose
whether the income received by the, respondent company in
the chargeable accounting period by way of rent was income
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
from business and assessable to excess profit tax. It was
held by this Court that a part of the assets did not cease
to be commercial assets of that business merely because it
was temporarily put to a different use or let out to another
and accordingly the income from the assets would be profits
of the business irrespective of the manner in which the
assets were exploited by the company. But this Court
clearly indicated that no general principle could be laid
down which would be applicable to all cases and that each
case must be decided on its own circumstances according to
ordinary commonsense principles. The material facts of
Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd. (1) are that only a part of the
machinery was Let out on lease and the rest of the machinery
was worked by the assessee. The letting out of the
machinery was for a short period of five months. There was
also no letting out of the premises of the factory by the
assessee. The ratio of the decision in Lakshmi Silk Mills
Ltd.(1) is therefore not applicable to the present case.
Reference was made on behalf of the assessee to the decision
in Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills v. Commissioner of Excess
Profits Tax(2) in which the assessee firm carrying on a
manufacturing business consisted of three partners, N and
his two sons R & G. In April, 1940, a public limited company
was incorporated with the object of taking over the business
of the assessee firm. This company was director-controlled
and the directors were N, his three sons R, G & S and a
brother-in-law of G. The company purchased only the building
and leasehold rights from the assessee firm but took over
from it on lease at an annual rent the plant and machinery.
The assessee firm did not thereafter manufacture anything
and it bad accordingly no further trading or commercial
activity. In the circumstances, it was held that letting
out of the plant and the machinery by the assessee to the
company could not fall within the definition of "business"
under section 2(5) and as the assessee firm had, no business
during the relevant period to which the Act applied, section
10A could not be invoked by the Excess Profit Tax
Authorities. It was however pointed out that whether a
particular activity amounts to any trade, commerce or
manufacture or any adventure in the nature of trade,
commerce,- or manufacture is always a difficult question to
answer and no general principle ran be laid down which would
be applicable to all cases and each case must be decided in
the setting and background ’of its own facts. It is evident
that the material facts in- the present case are somewhat
different from those of Narain Swadeshi
(1) 20 I.T.R. 451.
(2) 26 I.T.R. 765.
771
Weaving Mills’ case(1) for there is no out-right sale of the
building of the factory but only a lease of the factory
premises together with the machinery for a long period of
years.
For the reasons already expressed our conclusion is that the
intention of the assessee was not to treat the factory etc.
as a commercial asset during the subsistence of the lease.
In other words, the intention of the assessee was to go out
of the business altogether so far as the factory and the
machinery was concerned with effect from 1st June, 1945 and
the intention was to use the income arising from the royalty
in its capacity as the owner of the factory. it follows
therefore that the first question was rightly answered by
the High Court in favour of the Commissioner of Income Tax.
As regards the second question the argument was stressed by
Mr. Choudhury that clauses (vi-a) and (vi-b) of section
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
10(2) are ancillary to clause (vi) and should be taken to be
included within clause. (vi) as mentioned in sub-section (3)
of section 12. It appears that clause (vi-a) was inserted
by section 11 of the Taxation Laws (Extension to Merged
States and Amendment Act, 1949). Clause (vi-b) was inserted
by s. 8 of the Finance Act, 1955 with effect from 1st April,
1955. At the time of making the amendment under the said
Acts, no amendment was made to section 12(3) of the Act. It
was argued by Mr. Choudhury that although this was not done
specifically it followed by implication that additional
depreciation allowance in respect of new assets and
development rebate would cornsern within the ambit of
section 12(3). It appears to us that clauses (vi-a) and
(vi-b) are not ancillary to clause (vi) because the scheme
of clauses (vi-a) and (vi-b) is somewhat different. Clause
(vi-a) which was inserted in 1949 gives additional
depreciation allowance over and above the initial allowance
which was formerly available under ’the second paragraph of
clause (vi) in respect of buildings newly erected and new
machinery and plant but not furniture installed after the
31st March, 1948. The additional allowance under this
clause is confined to not more than five successive
assessments falling within the period from 1st April 1949
and 31st March 1959. Further it is deductible in deter-
mining the written down value, unlike the initial allowance
granted under the second paragraph of clause (vi). Clause
(vi-b) was inserted by the Finance Act, 1955. It grants
development rebate in respect of machinery and plant
provided that the machinery or plant is new and has been
installed after the 31st March, 1954; and provided further
that it is used wholly for the purpose of the assessee’s
business and the particulars prescribed for the purpose of
clause (vi) have been furnished. It is manifest that
clauses (vi-a) and (vi-b) introduce a new scheme
(1)26 I.T.R. 765.
772
and cannot be treated as an integral part of clause (vi) by
implication. Apart from this consideration it appears to us
that these clauses were not specifically engrafted by
Parliament in section 12(3) and section 12(4) while amending
section 10(2) of the Act. It is therefore not permissible
for the Court to read these same clauses by implication in
section 12(3) and section 12(4) of the Act. The duty of the
Court is to interpret the words that Parliament has used, it
cannot supply the gap disclosed in an Act or to make up the
deficiencies. "If", said Lord Brougham, in Gwynne v.
Burnell,(1) "we depart from the plain and obvious meaning on
account of such views (as those pressed in argument on 43.
Geo. 3, c. 99) we do not in truth construe the Act, but
alter it. We add words to it or vary the words in which its
provisions are couched. We supply a defect which the
legislature could easily have supplied, and are making the
law, not interpreting it" (Cf. Kumar Kamalaranian Roy v.
Secretary of State(2). Accordingly, we are of opinion that
the assessee is not entitled to additional depreciation and
development rebate and the second question was rightly
answered by the High Court in the negative.
For these reasons we hold that the judgment of the High
Court dated 20th September, 1963 is correct and this appeal
must be dismissed with costs.
V.P.S. Appeal dismissed.
(1) (1840) 7 Cl. & F. 572, 696. (2) 66 I.A. 110,
773
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11