Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd. v. C.I.T., West Bengal, Calcutta

The Judgment of the Coort was delivered by PATHAK, J: This appeal by .certificate under section 66-A(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 .raises a question involving the interpretation of section 24(2) (iii) of that Act. The assessee is a company carrying on the business of manufac­ turing jute good!;. The case relates to the assessment year 1960-61, for which the relevant accounting period is the financial year ending March 31, 1960. While making the assessment for the assessment year 1959-60, the Income Tax Officer set off the unabsorbed business loss of Rs.1,58,845 for 1949-50 and Rs. 5,70,952 for 1950-51 against the business income of that year and directed that Rs. 15,50,189 represent- . ing the kiss remaining unabsorbed should he carried forward. In the asse"ment proceeding for the assessment year 1960-61, with which we are concerned, the assessee claimed that the urny,sorbed loss should be carried forward and set off against the business income of the current y<~ar. The Income Tax Officer rejected the claim on the ground that the unabsorbed loss related to 1950-51 and could not be carried forward for more than eight years. The assessee pressed the claim in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Co=issioner but without success. A second appeal· was dismissed by the Income Tax Appelhte Tribunal. At the instance of the assessee, the Appellate A Tribunal referred the following question of law to the· Higb Court at Calcutta:- "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the :u.sessee was entitled in law to set off unabsorbed loss of Rs. 15,50,189 of the assessment year 1950-51 against the buc,iness income of the assessment year 1960-61 ?" The Higb Court answered the question in the negative. In this appeal by the assessee it is contended that by virtue of section 24(2) (iii) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, as it stood before its amendment with effect from April 1,1957, the assessee had C acquired a vested right to have the unabsorbed loss carried forward from year to year until it was completely set off and th" subsequent amendment limiting the period for carrying forward the loss to eight years coiI1d not divest the assessee of the vested right which had thus accrued to him. It is poirrb"d out that the amendment effected in 1957 is not retrospective in operation. In our judgment, there is no D substance in the assessee's claim. Section 24(2) has suffered amendment a 'number of times. Prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 1955 it permitted a business loss to be carried forward for not more than six years, except in the case of losses pertaining to certain assessment years ending with the E asse.ssment year 1943-44 where the period for carrying forward was shorter. Section 16 of the Finance Act, 1955 amended section 24(2), and as a result of the amendment section 24(2) (iii) provided that a businesss loss which was not wholly set off could be carried forward from year to year. Thereafter, Finance (No. 2) Act of 1957 amended s.24(2) (iii) with effect from April 1, 1957 and in consequence an J!' unabsorbed loss could not now be carried forward for more than eigbt years. The assessee claims a vested right under section 24(2)(iii), as it stood before its amendment in 1957, to have the unabsorbed loss of 1950-51 carried forward from year to year until the loss is completely absorbed. The claim is based on a misconception of the fundamental basis underlying every income tax assessment. "It is a cardinal prin- ciple of the tax law that the law to be applied is that in force in the assessment year u'nless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implication." Commissioner of lncome-l'ax, West Bengal v. Isthmian Steamship Lines(') and Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kera/a('). 'On that principle, it is abundantly clear that when an (1) (1951) 20 I.T.R. 572. (2) (1966) 60 I.T.R. 262. ;( . ' ' > 'l' RELIANCE INDUSTRIES v. C.l.T. (Pathak, J.) 909 assessment for the assesseent year 1960-61 is to be made and section 24(2) is 'invoked, it is s.24(2) as ill force in that assessment year which has to be applied.' That is the provision as amended by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1957. There is no question of the assessee pos­ sessing any vested right under the law as it stood before the amend­ ment. TI1e assessment for one assessment year cannQt, in the abrenee of a colltrary provision, be affected by the law in force in another assessment ~ar. A right claimed by an assessee under the law in force in a particular assessment year is ordinarily available only in relation to a proceeding pertaining to that year. Therefore, inasmuch as the provisio:n of section 24(2), as amended in 1957, govern the assess­ ment for the assessment year 1960-61, the High Court is rigJ:it in affirm­ ing that the unabsorbed loss of Rs. 15,50,189 of the assessment year 1950-51 cannot be carried forward for more than eight years, and consequently cannot be set off against the business income of the assessment year 1960-61. It is pointed out that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner mch- tioned in his order for the assessment year 1959-60 that the unabsorbed D loss of Rs. 15,50,189 should be carried forward. That direction has meanilig .cnly if the law in foree in the a55essment year 1960-61 pe1- mits th~' unabsorbed loss to be carried forward into the assessment of that year. The direction by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner assumes that the law permits the nnabsorbed Joos to be carried for­ ward into future years, but as we have seen that is not the law and, therefore, the assessee can derive no advantage from that direction. The assessee relies on the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala v. Helen Rubber Industries Ltd.(') That was a case,, however, where paragraph 3 of the Taxation Laws (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1950 operated to divide the previous years to which the provisions of the Travallcore Income Tax Act, 1946 applied from those previous years to which the provisions of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, brought into foree in the State of Travancore in 1950, would apply. It was because of the Removal of Difficulties Order that the Court held that since under the Travancore Law the loss could be carried forward for two years only and those two years ended be­ fore the ~evious years for which the Indian ~come Tax Act began to apply, the benefit of the period of six years under the Indian Income Tax Act would not be available. The case is clearly distinguishable. In the result, the app~al fails and is dismissed. P.B.R. Appeal dismissed. (!) (1952) 44 LT.R. 714.