09 July 1996
Supreme Court
Download

M/S WILH WILHELMSEN Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,WEST BENGAL

Bench: JEEVAN REDDY,B.P. (J)
Case number: Appeal Civil 1206 of 1978


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: M/S WILH WILHELMSEN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,WEST BENGAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/07/1996

BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (6)   167        1996 SCALE  (5)43

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                   THE 9TH DAY OF JULY,1996 Present:       Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.P.Jeevan Reddy       Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.B.Majmudar Manoj Arora, Ms.Shipra Ghose Jain, Manoj Pillai, Rahul P.Dave and D.N.Gupta, Advs. for the appellant Dr.V.Gaurishankar, Sr.Adv. Ms.A.Subhashini, S.Rajappa,and S.N.Terdol, Advs. with him for the Respondent                       J U D G M E N T      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: M/S.WILH, WILHELMSEN V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL-I.                       J U D G M E N T B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.      This appeal  is preferred  by the assessee on the basis of a  certificate of  fitness issued  by the  Calcutta  High Court under  Section 66A(2)  of the  Indian Income  Tax Act, 1922 [the  Act]. Three questions were referred under Section 66(2) of  the Act  at  the  instance  of  the  Revenue.  The questions are:      "1. Whether,  on the  facts and  in      the circumstances  of the case, the      Tribunal was  right in holding that      the assessee  was entitled  to  get      depreciation allowance under Rule 8      of the  Income-tax  Rules  even  in      respect of  ships which  had formed      part of  the assessee’s  fleet  for      more than twenty year?      2. Whether, on the facts and in the      circumstances  of   the  case,  the      Tribunal was  right in deleting the      addition of Rs.55,280/- made by the      Appellate Assistant Commissioner an

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

    account of  excess depreciation  in      respect of the vessel ’Tortugas’?      3. Whether, on the facts and in the      circumstances  of   the  case,  the      Tribunal was  justified in  law  in      deleting   the    enhancement    of      Rs.97,547/-  to  the  total  income      made  by  the  Appellate  Assistant      Commissioner on  account  of  wrong      deduction       af       unabsorbed      depreciation allowed  by the Income      Tax Officer?"      The Calcutta  High Court  answered Question No.1 in the negative,i.e.,in favour  of the  Revenue. Question  No.2 was answered in the affirmative,i.e., in favour of the assessee, while Question  No.3 was  answered in  the  negative,i.e.,in favour of  the Revenue  and  against  the  assessee.  On  an application  filed   by  the  assessee  for  issuance  of  a certificate  under   Section  66A(2),   the  High  Court  [a different Division  Bench] issued  the certificate observing that the  case raises  certain important  questions  of  law which require  to be considered by this Court. The questions so indicated are:      "The   issue   involved   in   this      reference       concerns        the      interpretation of  the circular and      the  instructions   issued  by  the      Central Board  of Revenue vis-a-vis      the applicability of Rule 33 of the      Income  Tax   Rules.  The   answers      involve  the   question  of   vital      importance for  the  assessment  of      shipping  companies   up   to   the      assessment  year  1976-77  and  how      Section 44-B  would be  applicable.      The  reference   dealt   with   the      question whether a shipping company      is entitled  to depreciation  under      section 10(2)(vi) of the Income Tax      Act,   1961    in   view   of   the      instructions issued  by the Central      Board of  Revenue.  This  reference      was also involved with the question      whether the  assessee would  become      disentitled to such depreciation in      view  of   the  said   instructions      contained in  the circular  of  the      Central Board  of  Revenue.  It  is      true that  the scope  and effect of      the circular of this type have been      considered by  the Supreme Court in      the case  of Ellermen Lines Ltd. v.      Commissioner  of   Income  Tax,  82      I.T.R. 913  and Navnitlal Javeri v.      Sen 56 I.T.R. 198, but the question      here is  to what  extent a circular      which  curtail  the  right  of  the      assessee under  the Act or the Rule      can be  given effect  to as against      the assessee.  It is  true, as  was      noted by  the Supreme  Court in the      cases referred  to herein before as      also  in   the  instant  case  that      circulars merely  provide a  method      of the  application of Rule 33, but

3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

    by providing  that  method  if  the      circular attempts  to  curtail  the      right  to   depreciation   by   the      assessee then  the jurisdiction  of      such  circulars  to  curtail  right      granted either  by the  Act or  the      Rule  framed   by  the   Act  would      require consideration. Further more      also on  the interpretation  of the      circular  there  is  a  substantial      question involved  - what  does the      expression    ’fleet’     in    the      instructions issued  by the Central      Board  of  Revenue  mean.  For  the      aforesaid reasons  we  are  of  the      opinion  that  this  case  involves      substantial and important questions      of  law   which   require   to   be      considered by the Supreme Court."      The appellant-assessee is a Norwegian Shipping Company. The assessment  year concerned  is  1958-59  for  which  the accounting year  was the  calender year  1957. The  relevant facts, as  stated in the judgment of the High Court, are the following: (i) Instead  of furnishing the annual accounts for its world business for  the  Assessment  Year  1958-59,  the  assessee furnished separate  complete annual  accounts for its Indian trade, that is to say, for all-round voyages of each ship to and from the Indian Ports. The assessment was made under the third method  contained in  Rule 33 of the Indian Income Tax Rules 1922  and  the  Instructions  issued  thereunder.  The profits that  were brought  to tax  ultimately were  the net Indian profits  of each ship employed in the Indian trade in the Accounting Year 1957. (ii) Following  the Instructions  aforementioned, the Income Tax Officer disallowed depreciation of eight ships mentioned in his  order on  the ground  that the  said  ships  in  the assessee’s fleet were of more than twenty years. (iii)  There   was  an   unabsorbed  depreciation  of  about Rs.3,31,493/ - in the Assessment Year 1953-54. An amount of Rs.2,49,093/-  was set-off  against the assessee’s income for the Assessment Year 1957-58. The unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.97,547/-  for the Assessment Year 1953-54 pertained to seven ships,  which did  not come to India in the accounting year relevant  to the  Assessment Year 1958-59. In the books of the  assessee, the said sum of Rs.97,547/- was shown as a business loss  brought forward  from the  earlier years. The Income Tax  Officer allowed the assessee to set-off the said amount against  the profits for the accounting year relevant to Assessment  Year 1958-59.  [We are  not stating the facts relating to  Question No.2 since it was answered by the High Court in  favour of  the assessee  and because  there is  no appeal by the Revenue against it.] (iv)  On   appeal,  the   Appellate  Assistant  Commissioner affirmed the  order of  the Income  Tax Officer.  Before the Appellate Assistant  Commissioner, the  Income  Tax  Officer contended that  allowing the  set-off of  Rs.97,547/- by him was a  mistake. the  assessee accepted  the said contention. Accordingly, the  Appellate Assistant  Commissioner enhanced the assessment by disallowing the said sum of Rs.97,547/-. (v) The assessee appealed to the Tribunal where it contended that  the   Instructions  insofar   as  they   provide   for disallowance of  depreciation on the said eight ships [which did not come to India during the accounting year relevant to Assessment Year  1958-59] were  ultra vires  proviso (c)  to

4

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

Section 10(2)(vi) of the Act and Rule 8 of the Indian Income Tax Rules,  1922.  It  contended  that  it  is  entitled  to depreciation  in  respect  of  all  these  ships  under  the provisions contained  in Section  10(2)(vi) proviso  (c) and Rule 8.  It submitted  further  that  the  words  "company’s fleet" occurring  in Instructions  were  referable  only  to those ships  of the  assessee which  were  employed  in  its Indian trade.      The Tribunal  did not  go in  the question  whether the Instructions  were  ultra  vires  the  statutory  provisions aforesaid but held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has misunderstood  the said  Instructions.  It  allowed  the assessee’s appeal on the following -reasoning:      "When the  depreciation is  allowed      under the  Indian Income-tax Act it      follows  that   in  the  matter  of      calculating the  overall  or  total      depreciation  for  the  purpose  of      proviso (c)  to  section  10(2)(vi)      one has  also to  take into account      only such  depreciation as has been      actually allowed  under the  Indian      Income-tax Act.  As  such  are  not      concerned   with    any    notional      depreciation or  depreciation which      might have  been provided,  in  the      accounts other  than those relevant      for the purpose of assessment under      the Indian Income-tax Act. This, to      our mind,  seems  to  be  the  most      patent and  obvious  interpretation      of Section  10(2)(vi). In  the case      of the  present assessee  which  is      assessed  on   the   round   voyage      method,  a  particular  ship  might      have called at the Indian port some      25 years  back and  may be employed      for the  company’s Indian trade for      the second  time only  in the  26th      year. That  does not  mean that the      company will  not  be  entitled  to      depreciation  in   the  26th   year      because in the intervening 25 years      the ship was evidently not used for      purpose of  the  round  voyage  via      India and  as such  no depreciation      had been  allowed under  the Indian      Income-tax Act except for the first      year. *** *** ****      In the  case of  a foreign shipping      company like  that of the appellant      company there  may be  ships  which      are borne more than 20 years on the      total world  fleet and  many of the      ships might  not have  been used at      all in  the Indian Waters but there      is no  prohibition under the Indian      Income-tax  Act   against  allowing      depreciation on  such ships  simply      on the  ground that  the  ship  had      formed  a  part  of  the  company’s      fleet -for  more than 20 years. Was      therefores hold  in favour  of  the      appellant   company    viz.    that      depreciation allowance  as provided

5

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

    in Rule  8 should be allowed on all      ships employed  in connection  with      the company’s  Indian trade subject      only  to   the  limitation  imposed      under  proviso   (c)   to   section      10(2)(vi)."      The Tribunal  further held  that the  said Instructions which may  have been  valid when  issued, became obsolete in view of  the introduction of Section 24(2) in the Act by the Finance Acts  1955. It  found that  inasmuch as the assessee carried on the same business in the relevant assessment year as was  carried on  in  the  previous  relevant  years,  the assessee is  entitled to set-off the unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.  97,547/- against  the profits of the Assessment Year 1958-59.      We may now set out the opinion of the High Court on the three questions  referred. On  the first  question, the High Court held  that the  Instructions are not inconsistent with the provisions  of the  Act or  the Rules.  They provide for assessment of  total income  of a  foreign shipping  company where it  furnishes annual  accounts for  the whole  of  its businesss Indian  and foreign, as well as where it furnishes the accounts  only  in  respect  of  its  Indian  trade.  By following the  latter method,  the foreign  shipping company cannot get  depreciation allowance  more than it is entitled to in  the former  method. The Instructions are clear. There is no  ambiguity therein.  Depreciation on a ship is allowed only when  it is actually employed in the trade or business. From Appendix-A  to Rule 8, it appears that for the purposes of depreciation allowance, the  Legislature has contemplated twenty years  to be  the normal expectation of the life of a ship.  The  order  passed  by  the  Income  Tax  Officer  is consistent with the said provisions. The Instructions merely clarify the  rule position.  Whether statutory  or not, they are binding  upon the  Income Tax  authorities  having  been issued under sub-section (8) of Section 5 of the Act.      On Question  No.3, the High Court held that inasmuch as ships in  respect of  which the  unabsorbed depreciation was sought to  be carried  forward did  not come to India during the accounting  year relevant to Assessment Year 1958-59 the said amount  of Rs.97,547/-  cannot be  set-off against  the profits of the said assessment year.      [We are  not setting  out the opinion of the High Court on Question  No.2, since  the said  question is not in issue before us.]      For a  proper appreciation  of  the  questions  arising herein, it  is necessary  to set out the relevant provisions of law.      Sub-section (8)  of Section  5 of the Act empowered the Central Board  of Revenue  to issue orders, instructions and directions which  were binding upon all officers and persons employed in  the execution  of the Act. The sub-section read as follows:      "(8)  All   Officers  and   persons      employed in  the execution  of this      Act shall  observe and  follow  the      orders, instructions and directions      af the Central Board of Revenue:           Provided    that    no    such      orders,instructions  or  directions      shall be  given so  as to interfere      with   the    discretion   of   the      Appellate Assistant Commissioner in      the  exercise   of  his   appellate      functions."

6

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

The provision  is clear.  It requires no elaboration. It is, however, evident  that the  power so  conferred  on  Central Board of Revenue has to be exercised for the purposes of and within the four corners of the Act.      Sub-section (2)  of Section  10 provided the allowances to be  made while  ascertaining the  profits  and  gains  of business, profession  and  vocation.  Clause  (vi)  of  sub- section  (2)   provided  for   depreciation  on   buildings, machinery, land  or furniture  being  the  property  of  the assessee. Proviso  (c) appended to clause (vi) provided that "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, shall, in  no case, exceed the original cost to the assessee of the buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, as the case may be".      Rule 33 of the Indian Income Tax Rules read as follows:      "33.  In  any  case  in  which  the      Income-tax Officer  is  of  opinion      that  the   actual  amount  of  the      income, profits  or gains  accruing      or arising  to any  person residing      out  of   the  taxable  territories      whether  directly   or   indirectly      through  or   from   any   business      connection    in     the    taxable      territories or  through or from any      property     in     the     taxable      territories, or through or from any      asset or  source of  income in  the      taxable territories,  or through or      from any money lent at interest and      brought    into     the     taxable      territories  in  cash  or  in  kind      cannot be  ascertained, the  amount      of such  income, profits  or  gains      for the  purposes of  assessment to      income-tax  may  be  calculated  on      such percentage  of the turnover so      accruing or  arising as the Income-      tax  Officer  may  consider  to  be      reasonable, or  on an  amount which      bears the  same proportion  to  the      total profits  of the  business  of      such  person  (such  profits  being      computed  in  accordance  with  the      provisions of the Indian Income-tax      Act) as the receipts so accruing or      arising bear  to the total receipts      of the  business, or  in such other      manner as  the  Income-tax  Officer      may deem suitable."      Now, coming  to the  Instructions issued under Rule 33, and which are the main subject-matter of debate herein, they read thus:      "This Rule  (Rule 33)  provides the      manner of  ascertaining the income,      profits or  gains of a non-resident      person, when  the actual  amount of      his  income,   profits   or   gains      chargeable to  tax in British India      cannot be arrived at.           In respect of foreign shipping      companies carrying  on business  in      British India  the following method

7

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

    will be followed for the purpose of      calculating   their   income   from      shipping  business  in  respect  of      assessment for the year 1939-40 and      for earlier years:      i) If  a company  furnishes  annual      accounts  for   the  whole  of  the      business, Indian  and foreign,  the      second method  provided by  Rule 33      will   reasonably    be    applied.      Depreciation   has   only   to   be      considered   in   calculating   the      world-profits.  These   are  to  be      calculated according  to the Indian      Income tax  Act. Profits calculated      according to the United Kingdom Act      will,  therefore,  require  certain      adjustments.  Deductions  permitted      in  the   United  Kingdom  but  not      permitted in Indian will have to be      added    back     and    deductions      permissible  in   India   but   not      permissible in  the United  Kingdom      will have  to be  allowed.  If  any      company, however,  prefers to claim      the  depreciation  allowed  by  the      United      Kingdom      Income-tax      authorities, the  Commissioners  of      Income-tax may  adopt that  figure.      Otherwise, depreciation  will  have      to be  calculated according  to the      Indian Rules.  What follows applies      to the  calculated of  depreciation      according to  the Indian rules. For      this    purpose,     a     complete      depreciation  record   has  to   be      maintained  for  the  entire  fleet      Depreciation begins to run from the      first year  in which the company is      assessed  in  India  that  is,  the      first year  in which its profits or      loss  were   determined   for   the      purpose of  deciding whether it was      liable   to    Indian   Income-tax.      Unabsorbed depreciation  i.e.,  any      balance   of   depreciation   which      cannot be allowed in any year owing      to the profits not being sufficient      to   cover    the    full    amount      permissible under  the Indian rules      will be carried forward and allowed      as far  as possible  in calculating      the world-profits  according to the      Indian method in the following year      and  if   necessary  in  subsequent      years  provided   that   unabsorbed      depreciation   for    1938-39   and      earlier years  cannot  be  set  off      against an  assessment for  1939-40      or any subsequent year.           The proportion Indian receipts      to total receipts is applied to the      world profits  calculated according      to the  Indian method (if there are      any such profits) and the result is

8

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

    the Indian income liable to tax. No      further  deduction  is  permissible      from the  amount thus arrived at on      account of depreciation (unabsorbed      or otherwise) or anything else. The      due proportion  of  all  allowances      permissible  is  automatically  set      off against  the Indian  profits by      the above method.           This   method    is    equally      applicable whether  a company works      out the  profits for each voyage or      follows any other method of account      provided that  it prepares complete      annual  accounts   for  the   whole      businesss Indian  and foreign,  and      furnishes  the  accounts  of  gross      receipts, Indian and foreign.           Some  lines   do  not  furnish      complete annual  accounts for their      world business.  They keep separate      complete annual  accounts for their      Indian trade  that is,for all round      voyage to  and from  Indian  Ports.      The proper  course is then to apply      the method  just described treating      the profits of the Indian trade and      the gross  receipts of  the  Indian      trade  as   though  they  were  the      world-profits   and    the   world-      receipts respectively. In fact, the      business  other   than  the  Indian      trade is ignored.      ii) A  difficulty sometimes  arises      in such  cases owing  to  the  fact      that  the  ships  employed  in  the      Indian trade  are constantly  being      changed.  Unless   United   Kingdom      depreciation   is    accepted    as      indicated  above,   a  depreciation      record will  have to  be  kept  for      every ship  employed at any time in      the Indian trade. Depreciation must      be allowed on each ship employed in      the Indian  trade in  a given  year      and  the   allowance  must   be   a      proportion  of   the  annual   rate      calculated with  reference  to  the      number of  days spent in the Indian      trade whether at sea or in harbour.      Any unabsorbed  depreciation in any      year must  be distributed among the      ships in  the Indian  trade in that      year proportion to the capital cost      of   each    and   the   unabsorbed      depreciation’thus allotted  to  any      ship can  only be  allowed  in  any      subsequent year  against  the  same      ship.           The allowance should cease:      a) on  ships which were included in      the fleet  in  the  first  year  in      which the company becomes liable to      assessment in  India  (irrespective      of whether it was actually found to

9

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

    have a  taxable income in that year      or not),  after the  twentieth year      beginning with that year;      b) on  ships subsequently  added to      the  company’s  fleet,  after  they      have been borne on the fleet for 20      years.           In both  cases the  period may      be extended  proportionately  where      the United  Kingdom depreciation is      allowed in  calculating the profits      of the  Indian trade which take the      place as  already explained  of the      world profits.           Obsolescence cannot be allowed      in these cases.           British  Shipping  Companies--      Assessment   of:   when   assessing      British Shipping  Companies,  --the      Income-tax Officer  should accept a      certificate granted  by  the  Chief      Inspector of  Taxes in  the  United      Kingdom stating  (1) the  ratio  of      the  profits   of  any   accounting      period as computed for the purposes      cf the  United  Kingdom  income-tax      computed   without    making    any      allowance for  wear and tear to the      gross  earnings  of  the  Company’s      whole fleet, and their ratio of the      United Kingdom  allowance for  wear      and tear  to the  gross earnings of      the whole  fleets or  (2) the  fact      that there  were no  such  profits.      The expression  ’gross earnings’ of      the company’s whole fleet means the      total  receipts   of  the  Shipping      Company  excepting   only  receipts      from non-trading  sources  such  as      income from investments. Assessment      for 1940-41  onwards  =  The  above      instructions   should    also    be      followed   in    respect   of   the      assessment  of   foreign   shipping      companies  for   1940-41   onwards.      These instructions inter alia allow      a    foreign    shipping    company      furnishing annual  accounts for the      whole of  its business.  Indian and      foreign to  adopt the U.K. wear and      tear  allowance   in  lieu  of  the      depreciation  allowance  under  the      Indian  Income-tax   Act  for   the      purpose of  the computation  of its      income  in   accordance  with   the      second method  provided by Rule 33,      and also  allow a  British shipping      company to  elect to be assessed on      the basis  of a  ratio  certificate      granted  by  the  U.K.  authorities      regarding the  income or  loss  and      the wear and tear allowance."             [Quoted from the Paper Book]      It would  be  evident  from  a  perusal  of  the  above provisions that  Section  10(2)(vi)  does  not  specifically

10

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

provide for  allowance  of  depreciation  on  foreign  ships trading with  India. Rule  33  also  does  not  specifically provide for  the situation  except that  the last portion of the rule  empowers the  Income Tax  Officer to arrive at the actual amount  of  incomes  profits  or  gains  accruing  or arising to  any person  residing outside taxable territories in such  other  manner  as  he  deems  suitable  where  such ascertainment cannot  be done  according to  the  first  two methods indicated  therein. It  is precisely  to provide for certain specific  situations that  the Central  Board issued the aforesaid  Instructions under  Rule 33. The Instructions specifically lay  down the  method and  the manner  in which depreciation has  to be  worked out  on  ships  owned  by  a foreign shipping line carrying on business in British India. In this  case, it is admitted that the appellant-company did not prepare and furnish the complete annual accounts for its entire businesss  Indian and  foreign, along with an account of its  gross  receipts,  Indian  and  foreign.  It  kept  a separate annual  account in  respect of its Indian trade and submitted the  same  to  the  Income  tax  authorities.  The Instructions provide  inter alia  for such  a  situation  as well. The  Instructions issued  by the  Central Board  under Rule 33  merely elucidate  and elaborate the manner in which the business income of such foreign shipping lines are to be ascertained.  These   Instructions  are   relatable  to  the last/third  alternative   provided  by   Rule  33.  We  are, therefore,  in  agreement  with  the  High  Court  that  the aforesaid Instructions  do not run counter to Rule 33 or for that  matter   to  Section   10(2)(vi).   Evidently,   these Instructions were  issued in  view of the problems faced and experience gained  by the  department and to meet situations not expressly provided for by the Act or the Rules. They are in the  nature of guidance to the assessing officers. We are also in  agreement with the High Court that the Instructions are clear  and unambiguous  and that  the Income Tax Officer was bound  to follow  them.  The  Instructions  specifically provided that  depreciation must  be allowed  on  each  ship employed in  the Indian  trade in  a given year and that the allowance must be a proportion of the annual rate calculated with reference  to the  number of  days spent  in the Indian trade whether  at sea  or in  harbour. They further provided that  any  unabsorbed  depreciation  in  any  year  must  be distributed among  the ship in the Indian trade in that year in proportion  to the capital cost of each ship and that the unabsorbed depreciation  thus allotted to many ship can only be allowed in any subsequent year against the same ship. The Instructions also  provide clearly  that the allowance shall cease on  ships after  the expiry of twenty years. It is not disputed by  the learned  counsel for the assessee before us that the  Instructions have  been  correctly  understood  or followed by  the Income Tax Officer. The complaint rather is that the  Instructions themselves  are inconsistent with the statutory  provisions.   Since  we   have  held   that   the Instructions are not inconsistent with nor can be said to be outside the purview of Rule 33 read with Section 5(8) of the Act, no  further question arises. Accordingly, we affirm the answer given by the High Court to Question No.1.      So far as Question No.3 is: concerned, the answer to it also  depends   upon  the   validity  and  applicability  of Instructions aforesaid.  It has been found by the High Court that the  seven ships,  the unabsorbed  depreciation whereof was sought  to be set-off in the Assessment Year 1958-59 did not come  to India  in the  Accounting Year 1957 relevant to the Assessment  Year 1958-59. According to the Instructions, the unabsorbed  depreciation in respect of a particular ship

11

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

can only  be allowed  against  that  particular  ship  in  a subsequent year  provided that it was employed in the Indian trade in  the subsequent  year. Accordingly,  we affirm  the answer given by the High Court to Question No.3 as well.      The learned  counsel for  the appellant  brought to our notice the subsequent decision of the Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Income tax, West Bengal v. Swedish East Asia Company Limited  [(1981) 127  I.T.R.148] where  the Division Bench criticized  certain observations in the judgment under appeal with respect to the scope of the power conferred upon Central Board  under Section  5(8). Since  we have held that the Instructions  concerned herein  are relatable to Rule 33 it is  not necessary  to go  into the  question whether  the power conferred upon the Central Board to issue instructions can be employed for issuing instructions contrary to the Act and the  Rules. Obviously  it can’t  be so  used  an  aspect already dealt  by us  hereinabove. The  learned counsel also brought to our notice that the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Swedish East Asia Company Limited has been followed by the  Bombay High  Court in  Commissioner of Income Tax v. Minerva Maritime Corporation [(1985) 155 I.T.R.258]. For the reasons given  above, this  submission does  not  carry  the appellant’s case any further.      Now, a  word about the order of the High Court granting certificate. The  order granting  certificate raises certain questions which  do not  directly arise from the judgment of the High  Court. The  order granting  certificate  seems  to assume that  the  Instructions  are  inconsistent  with  the statutory provisions  which assumption,  in  our  respectful opinion, is  not warranted,  as has  been  indicated  by  us hereinabove.      For  the   above  reasons,  the  appeal  fails  and  is dismissed with  costs. Advocate’s  fee Rupees  ten  thousand consolidated.