Bombay High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Tata Iron And Steel Co. Ltd. on 8 April, 1993
Equivalent citations: [1994]206ITR196(BOM)
JUDGMENT
U.T. Shah J.
1. This reference pertains to three years, viz., assessment years 1962-63 to 1964-65. There are two issues raised by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal") at the instance of the Revenue in referring two questions under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act").
2. The assessee is a company. The assessment years are 1962-63 to 1964-65 and the relevant previous years are the corresponding financial years ended on March 31, 1962, 1963 and 1964, respectively.
3. The first issue pertains to the assessment year 1964-65 and the question referred reads as under :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was liable to capital gains tax in respect of its 15,606 shares in Sankey Electrical Stampings Ltd. on the amalgamation of S.E.S. Ltd. with Messrs. Guest Keen Williams Ltd. ?"
4. As we narrate the facts and they way the case proceeded before the income-tax authorities and the Tribunal, it would appear that the question as framed by the Tribunal requires to be reframed with a view to bring out the real controversy which we will do a little later.
5. The facts are : Messrs. Sankey Electrical Stampings Ltd. ("S.E.S.") was a subsidiary company of Messrs. Guest Keen Williams Limited ("G.K.W."), the latter holding 83.64 per cent. of the share capital of the former. The remaining 16.36 per cent. of the share capital of S.E.S. was held by the assessee. It may be mentioned that the assessee held 15,606 shares of S.E. S. of the book value of Rs. 16,43,900. The assessee had acquired 14,470 shares before December 11, 1960, for Rs. 15,30,300 and 1,136 shares were acquired on December 28, 1962, for Rs. 1,13,600. The shares of G.K.W. were and are quoted at the Calcutta Stock Exchange. The shares of S.E.S. were not quoted on any stock exchange. It appears that some time in 1962-63, G.K.W. decided to merge S.E.S. with it for the purpose of ensuring an efficient and economic working of S.E.S. and to enable G.K.W. to obtain additional capital required for expansion. To facilitate the merger. G.K.W. wanted to acquire the assessee's holding in S.E.S. as that would make S.E.S. a 100 per cent. subsidiary of G.K.W. A proposal in this regard was put forward and negotiations followed. As a result of negotiations carried on between the assessee and G.K.W., the former agreed to transfer its holding in S.E.S. to G.K.W. and consideration of or this was fixed as 1.38 face value share capital in G.K.W. for 1.00 face value share capital of S.E.S. On this basis, 15,60,600 were transferred to G.K.W. In consideration thereof, the assessee got 2,14,583 shares of G.K.W. of the face value of Rs. 21,45,830 (each share being of the face value of Rs. 10).
6. In connection with the aforesaid arrangement, G.K.W. in its thirty-third annual general meeting held on May, 31, 1963, passed the following resolution :
"RESOLVED that, notwithstanding the provisions of the articles of association of the company, the directors be and are hereby authorised (subject to the approval of the Central Government) to issue and allot to Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited 2,14,583 fully paid equity shares of Rs. 10 each in the company and to accept in full satisfaction of the said shares, 15,606 fully paid equity shares of Rs. 100 each to Sankey Electrical Stampings Ltd. now registered in the name of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., and that accordingly, the directors of the company shall not be required to offer such 2,14,583 equity shares in the company to members of the company in accordance with article 6(1) of the said articles of association."
7. After passing the resolution, G.K.W. sent an allotment letter dated July 26, 1963, to the assessee, which reads as under :
"In response to your application dated July 19, 1963, we have to inform you that in accordance with the resolution passed by the company at the annual general meeting held on May 31, 1963, and subject to the memorandum and articles of association of the company, the directors have allotted you 2,14,583 fully paid equity shares of Rs. 10 each in consideration of your having transferred to us 15,606 fully paid equity shares of Rs. 100 each in Sankey Electrical Stampings Ltd.
The relative share certificate will be posted to you on return of this letter of allotment duly discharged to the Registrar of Companies Jardine Henderson Ltd., 4 Clive Row, Calcutta-1.
The shares represented by this letter of allotment for any dividend that may be declared hereafter pari passu with the existing equity shares of the company."
8. On the aforesaid facts, the assessee took up a stand before the Income-tax Officer that no capital gains had arisen in the aforesaid transaction as the assessee received shares of G.K.W. in place of the shares of S.E.S. on amalgamation of S.E.S. with G.K.W. The Income-tax Officer, however, did not accept the assessee's contention as according to him, the aforesaid transaction was indeed a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act and the assessee was liable to capital gains. The Income-tax Officer, however, made the following observation :
"As a result of this amalgamation, there has been extinguishment of rights on capital assets which was the shareholding of the assessee-company in Sankey Electrical Stampings Ltd. and gains as a result thereof would be taxable under the head 'Capital gains'."
9. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee contended that once the Income-tax Officer had accepted that the assessee received shares of G.K.W. on amalgamation of S.E.S. with G.K.W., he was not as well as short-term in respect of shares of S.E.S. exchanged with the shares of G.K.W. The assessee also submitted that since the transaction did not involve transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act, there was no justification on the part of the Income-tax Officer to work out the capital gains and include the same in the total income of the assessee. During the course of hearing before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had collected certain instead of coming to the conclusion that there was "amalgamation" of S.E.S. with G.K.W. In fact, in this connection, at paragraph (17) of his order, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner observed "in fact, the position does not appear to have been squarely put up before the Income-tax Officer and he has been led in the path paved for him to hold that the exchange was as a result of merger of the two companies". After hearing the submissions made on behalf of the assessee as well as perusing the material already brought on record and that collected by him, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the action of the Income-tax Officer as under :
"It will be seen from the above that there was actual transfer of Sankey shares by the appellant-company to Messrs. Guest Keen Williams Ltd. After such transfer took place, necessary steps for effecting the proposed amalgamation were undertaken. It can, therefore, be said that the acquisition of shares of Guest Keen Williams Ltd. by the appellant-company in exchange for shares of Sankey Electrical Stampings Ltd. was not part and parcel of the process of amalgamation of Sankey Electrical Stampings Ltd. with Guest Keen Williams Ltd. The process of amalgamation of Sankey Electrical Stampings Ltd. with Guest Keen Williams Ltd. started after Sankey shares held by the appellant were transferred to Guest Keen Williams Ltd. and the former became a 100 per cent. subsidiary of the latter. As there was an actual transfer of shares any gains arising from such transactions were liable to capital gains tax under the Income-tax Act as the shares transferred were held on investment account. Accordingly, I hold that the Income-tax Officer was fully justified in subjecting to tax the gains arising out of transfer of Sankey shares by the appellant to G.K.W."
10. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee went up in appeal before the Tribunal and reiterated the submissions which were made before the Income-tax Officer as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and strongly urged that the income-tax authorities were not justified in coming to the conclusion that the assessee's case fell within the meaning of the expression "transfer" contained in section 2(47) of the Act. It may be mentioned that on behalf of the assessee elaborate submissions were made and the Tribunal has recorded the same in paragraphs 24 to 28 of its order running into seven foolscap pages. Barring the repetition, the main contentions of the assessee were :
(a) that there was no transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act in the aforesaid transaction;
(b) there was no intention of any sale or exchange of the shares;
(c) taking the entire development as a whole, the shares of G.K.W. were received by the assessee on the amalgamation of S.E.S. with G.K.W.
(d) since the transfer was made for the full value of the consideration plus the cost of improvement, there was no capital gains which could be brought to tax under section 45 of the Act.
11. The Tribunal, in its order under reference, accepted the submissions made on behalf of the assessee by skirting the real issue and glossing over the facts favourable to the assessee instead of examining the whole transaction minutely as was done by the Appellate assistant Commissioner.
12. It would appear from the aforesaid discussion that the question raised by the Tribunal does not bring out the real issue involved. If the question as referred to us by the Tribunal is to be answered, then the answer is self-evident. Surely, the Tribunal is not supposed to refer questions to the High Court which are self-evident. We, therefore, reframe the question with a view to bring out the real issue as under :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was liable to capital gains tax in the aforesaid transaction ?"
13. Learned counsel for the assessee resisted the reforming of the question as according to him, the High Court should not reframe the question referred to it by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Act. In fact, he further submitted that the High Court has no power to reframe the question. However, we are not impressed by the submissions made on behalf of the assessee in this regard as without discussing further, it may be mentioned that there are enough number of authorities both of this court as well as of the Supreme Court which say that even in its advisory jurisdiction, the High Court has power to reframe the question with a view to bring out the real issue involved in the matter.
14. Learned counsel for the Revenue strongly relied on the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and brought to our notice certain facts found at the appellate stage and urged that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the material brought on record in its proper perspective. According to learned counsel or the Revenue, in the aforesaid transaction, there was clearly transfer of shares of S.E.S. to G.K.W. in consideration of the assessee getting shares of G.K.W. In this connection, definition of the word "transfer" and submitted that in the instant case right in the shares of S.E.S. for which the assessee got shares of G.K.W. us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
15. Learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, reiterated the submissions which were made before the income-tax authorities as well as the Tribunal and strongly urged that since the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case and has come to the conclusion that no capital gains arose in the aforesaid transaction we should answer the question as reframed by us in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In this connection, he made two further submissions. Viz., if we were to appreciate the material brought on record in the proper perspective then it can be discerned that the assessee got shares of G.K.W. not in exchange of the shares of S. E.S. held by it but due to the amalgamation of S.E.S. with G.K.W. His other submission was that even assuming for the sake of argument that the aforesaid transaction falls within the definition of the word "transfer" as contained in section 2(47) of the Act, when the shares of S.E.S. were handed over to G.K.W., since the shares of G.K.W. were not in existence which were given to the assessee, there cannot be exchange of shares within the meaning of the word transfer. In other words, he wanted to impress upon us that in order to hold that there was an exchange of assets, both the assets should be in existence, the one which was given to the party in exchange for which he gets something else from the other party. He, however, was fair enough to state that on the material available on record, it cannot be disputed that the shares of S.E.S. were handed over to G.K.W. prior to the amalgamation of S.E.S. with G.K.W. In support of his submission, he made reference to three decisions not under the Income-tax Act but under different statutes. On is V.G.M. Holdings Ltd., In re [1942] 1 All E.R. 224 (CA), the second is Secretary, Board of Revenue v. Madura Mills, Co. Ltd., AIR 1937 Mad 259 [FB] and the third is Sri Gopal Jalan and Co. v. Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. . In concluding his submissions, he once again urged that we should not reframe the question or in any event the question as reframed by us should be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
16. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the parties as well as the material already brought on record and considered by the income-tax authorities as well as the Tribunal and we find considerable force in the stand taken on behalf of the Revenue. In our view, elaborate discussion is not necessary as it is not in dispute that the assessee had handed over its shares of S.E.S. to G.K.W. much prior to the amalgamation of S.E. S. with G.K.W. The resolution passed in the annual general meeting of G.K.W. and the allotment letter issued by G.K.W. to the assessee leave no doubt in our mind that there was an exchange of shares of S.E.S. with the shares of G.K.W. prior to the amalgamation of S.E.S. with G.K.W. In other words, the transaction clearly falls within the definition of the expression "transfer" contained in section 2(47) of the Act and consequently, the assessee would be liable to capital gains tax as provided in section 45 of the Act. In view of the decision we are taking, it is not necessary to discuss certain reported decisions cited on behalf of the assessee, more so, when in the reported decisions, the statutes concerned are quite different from the provisions of the Act with which we are concerned in this reference. It is pertinent to note that in the reported decisions, which are cited on behalf of the assessee, the courts were not concerned with the interpretation of the definition of the expression "transfer" contained in section 2(47) of the Act which has a very wide meaning and cannot be narrowed down by referring to the provisions of other statutes which are quite different and applicable in different contexts.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the question as reframed by us in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
18. The next issue raised in the second question referred to us relates to all the three years under reference and reads as under :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that both the deficit in depreciation allowance and the excess development rebate provided in the accounts should be taken into account for computing the 'distributable income of the previous year' as defined in Explanation 2 to section 236 of the Income-tax Act for 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 assessment years ?"
19. It may be mentioned that issue under the provisions of section 236 of the Act generally do not arise. This is one of the rare cases where some dispute has arisen between the parties in respect of working of "distributable income of the previous year". Before we deal with the issue involved, it would be advantageous to refer to the background for bringing the provisions of section 236 of the Act on the statute.
20. Messrs. Kanga and Palkhivala in their book on the Law and Practice of Income Tax, seventh edition, have summarised the background at page 1102 as under :
"The law up to the assessment year 1959-60 was that the income-tax (but not supertax) paid by a company on its profits was deemed to be paid on behalf of its shareholders, and the shareholders were given credit in their assessments in respect of the income-tax paid by the company on the profits out of which the dividends were declared. Form the assessment year 1960-61 on wards, this system was changed and no credit was given to shareholders in respect of any tax paid by the company on its own profits; but at the same time the rate of tax on companies was reduced. This section is enacted to deal with the situation where a company pays dividends out of its profits actually charged at the higher rates of corporate tax prevailing for assessment years prior to 1960-61, while the shareholders gets no credit for the tax paid by the company. The company gets relief to the extent of ten per cent. of such dividends paid out of profits so charged prior to 1960-61.
In order to decide whether a company is entitled to relief under this section, the test is not whether in fact or according to the accounts kept and the entries made by the company the dividend is paid out of profits charged for any assessment year prior to 1960-61. Explanation 1 to this section enacts a fiction of law which applies to every case covered by this section and by which the income is deemed first to have come out of the distributable income of the previous year in respect of which the dividend is declared and the balance, if any, out of the undistributed income of one or more previous years immediately preceding that previous year as would be just sufficient to cover the amount of such balance. The fiction affords a uniform and easy solution to a problem which might prove intractable if it were to be answered by reference to the realities of a given case."
21. Since the issue pertains to the interpretation of a certain portion of section 236 of the Act, it would be necessary to reproduce the said section in extenso :
"236. Relief to company in respect of dividend paid out of past taxed profits. - (1) Where in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing after March 31, 1960, an Indian company or a company which has made the prescribed arrangements for the declaration and payment of dividends within India, pays any dividend wholly or partly out of its profits and gains actually charged to income-tax for any assessment year ending before April 1, 1960, and deducts tax therefrom in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B, credit shall be given to the company against the income-tax, if any, payable by it on the profits and gains of the previous year during which the dividend is paid, of a sum calculated in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2), and, where the amount of credit so calculated exceeds the income-tax payable by the company as aforesaid, the excess shall be refunded.
(2) The amount of income-tax to be given as credit under sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal to ten per cent. of so much of the dividends referred to in sub-section (1) as are paid out of the profits and gains actually charted to income-tax for any assessment year ending before April 1, 1960.
Explanation 1. - For the purposes of this section, the aggregate of the dividends declared by a company in respect of any previous year shall be deemed first to have come out of the distributable income of that previous year and the balance, if any, out of the undistributed part of the distributable income of one or more previous years immediately preceding that previous year as would be just sufficient to cover the amount of such balance and as has not likewise been taken into account for covering such balance of any other previous year.
Explanation 2. - The expression 'distributable income of any previous year' shall mean the total income (as computed before making any deduction under Chapter VII-A) assessed for that year as reduced by
(i) the amount of tax payable by the company in respect of its total income;
(ii) the amount of any other tax levied under any law for the time being in force on the company by the Government or by a local authority in excess of the amount, if any, which has been allowed in computing the total income;
(iii) any sum with reference to which a deduction is allowable to the company under the provisions of section 80G; and
(iv) in the case of a banking company, the amount actually transferred to a reserve fund under section 17 of the banking Companies Act 1949 (X of 1949), and as increased by
(a) any profits and gains or receipts of the company, not included in its total income (as computed before making any deduction under Chapter VI-A); and
(b) any amount attributable to any allowance made in computing the profits and gains of the company for purposes of assessment, which the company has not taken into account in its profit and loss account."
22. The dividend declared in each of the years under reference and the tax credit claimed by the assessee and that allowed by the Income-tax Officer are tabulated below :
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax credit
-------------------------------
Assessment Dividend Per per Income-tax year declared assessee Officer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rs. Rs. Rs. 1962-63 4,65,04,499 46,50,449 44,31,420 1963-64 4,65,04,823 46,52,482 45,04,651 1964-65 4,88,56,378 *22,86,335 *21,27,554
---------------------------------------------------------------------
* These figures are arrive at after considering the current years profits of Rs. 2,59,93,028 by the assessee and Rs. 2,75,80,833 by the Income-tax Officer.
23. In other to appreciate better the rival stands of the parties, we would advert to the assessment year 1962-63 wherein the parties have computed "distributable income" as per their understanding of the provisions of section 236 of the Act.
Per assessee :
Rs. Rs.
Total income assessed to tax Nil
Less : Income-tax, supertax, wealth-tax, etc. Nil
Donations 1,50,000 1,50,000
------------------------
(-) 1,50,000
Add : Excess of depreciation and
development rebate allowance
for income-tax purposes over the
provision in the accounts :
(a) Depreciation 13,59,67,240
(b) Development rebate 6,05,15,656
------------------
19,64,82,896
Provision in the accounts :
(a) Depreciation 13,92,39,469
(b) Development rebate 6,44,00,000
-----------------
20,36,39,469
-----------------
24. According to the assessee, as the allowance in respect of depreciation and development rebate together was less than the provision made in the accounts, no adjustment was to be made; and as such, the distributable income of the previous year ended March 31, 1961, was nil.
Per Income-tax Officer :
Rs.
Total income Nil
Less : Income-tax and supertax, Nil
Wealth-tax Nil
Donations 1,50,000
----------------
(-) 1,50,000
Add : Excess of depreciation allowance made
as per assessment over the provision
in the accounts :
Depreciation allowed in assessment 14,15,60,250
Less : Provision in accounts 13,92,39,469
23,20,781
----------------
Distributable income 21,70,781
-----------------
25. No adjustment for development rebate is to be made, as the development rebate allowed in the assessment for Rs. 6,05,15,656 is not in excess of the debit in the account of development rebate reserve for Rs. 6,44,00,000.
26. It would be clear from the above that the assessee's case is, since the allowance in respect of depreciation and development rebate together was less than the provision made in the accounts, no adjustment was required to be made and as such the distributable income for the previous computing the distributable income, the total of the allowances made in such allowances should be taken as a whole and not itemwise. The Income-tax Officer, on the other hand, was of the view that the allowance made in the assessment and the provision made in the profit and loss account have to be taken itemwise. According to the assessee, there was no distributable profit for the assessment year 1961-62 and, therefore, the entire divided of Rs. 4,65,04,699 should be considered in working out the tax credit. The Income-tax Officer, on the other hand, was of the view that there was distributable profit for the assessment year 1961-62 amounting to Rs. 21,70,781. It may be mentioned that similar was the position in respect of the other two years under reference.
27. In appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee once again urged that keeping in view the provisions of section 236 of the Act, more particularly Explanation 2, clause (b) thereof, in order to find out the distributable income for any previous year, we have not to consider the allowances and provisions itemwise but they have to be considered together. If that is done then the tax credit as worked out by the assessee was quite in order and the Income-tax Officer ought to have accepted the same. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, upheld the action of the Income-tax Officer in the following manner :
"A simple reading of sub-clause (iv)(b) of the above Explanation would show that if in the assessment any excess allowance has been allowed which the company has not taken into account in the profit and loss account, to that extent adjustment is called for; vice versa is not provided for in the Act. The use of the words 'any allowance' in sub-clause (iv)(b) also shows that each allowance is to be considered separately, as done by the Income-tax Officer and not all the allowances collectively as urged by the appellant. In view of this, the Income-tax Officer was obliged to make necessary adjustment in regard to depreciation as in the assessment here more depreciation was allowed vis-a-vis the provisions used in the accounts. No adjustment was called for in respect of development rebate as it is not provided in the Act that where excess provision is made in the accounts vis-a-vis the actual allowance in the assessment consequent adjustment should be made in the determination of 'distributable income' of the relevant previous year."
28. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee took up this issue also before the Tribunal and once again pressed for the acceptance of its view. The Revenue, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the income-tax authorities. Here also, the Tribunal has accepted the assessee's contention. Here also, we cannot resist observing that the Tribunal once again glossed over the issue and decided the same in favour of the assessee in the following manner :
"If we consider all these provisions contained in section 236 together, we cannot fail to notice the pertinent fact that the purpose of the provision is to deem the maximum amount of dividend to have been paid out of the current year's income, so that the relief in the amount of income-tax allowable under sub-section (2) thereof would be reduced to the minimum. At the same time, care has been taken in drafting Explanation 2 to see that a company is not presumed to have distributed dividend exceeding what it considered to be the amount at its disposal for such distribution. The whole purpose of the various clauses of Explanation 2 is to determine the maximum amount which a company could have assumed to have been available for distribution at the time of passing the resolution for distributing dividend. That is exactly the reasons why in the case of a shortfall in the provision for any allowance the amount of the shortfall is directed to be added to the assessed income inasmuch as the company must be presumed to have proceeded to distribute dividend on the basis of the maximum amount of distributable income as shown by its accounts. Just as in the case of a shortfall in the provision for any be available for distribution, in the case of an excess provision for any allowance the company should be assumed to have taken the amount of the excess provision not to be available to it for distribution. To take into account the former but to ignore the latter would result in assuming that the company considered an amount available to it for distribution of dividend which was, in fact, not so available as per its accounts. It would be absurd and illogical to assume that the company could have declared dividend of an amount exceeding the amount which it reasonably considered to be available to it for such distribution with reference to its an absurd position. We must, therefore, accept the construction advocated by Mr. Palkhivala which is quite logical and consistent with the underlying object of the provision. We, accordingly, accept the contention of Mr. Palkhivala and direct the Income-tax Officer to allow relief under section 236 on this basis for all these three years."
29. Learned counsel for the Revenue once again relied on the orders of the income-tax authorities and justified their action. In this connection, he also invited our attention to section 236 of the Act, more particularly Explanation 2 and clause (b) thereof, and urged that there was no question of finding out the distributable income by taking all the allowances together as was urged on behalf of the assessee and accepted by the Tribunal. He also referred to the background under which this provision was brought on the statute with a view to minimise certain anomalies which would arise due to the change in taxing dividend income. He, therefore, urged that this question also should be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
30. Learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, strongly supported the order of the Tribunal and submitted that since the provisions of section 236 of the Act are of beneficial nature, the same should be considered liberally and in favour of the assessee. According to him, the tribunal was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that all the allowances should be considered together vis-a-vis the provisions made in the books of account and not itemwise as was done by the Income-tax Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. He, therefore, urged that this question should also be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
31. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the parties. It is quite apparent from the background for bringing this section on the statute that Parliament wanted to minimise, if not eliminate altogether, anomalies which might arise due to the change in the method of taxing dividend income. In other words, it is difficult to accept the submissions made on behalf of the assessee that the provisions of section 236 of the Act are of "beneficial nature". In our considered opinion, on a proper appreciation and the context in which clause (b) appears in Explanation 2 to section 236 of the Act, the distributable profits as worked out by the Income-tax Officer are quite in order and in line with the provisions contained in that section. In this view of the matter, we answer this question also in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
32. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.