Dipak Kumar Sen, J. - (1.) In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of Messrs. Duncan Brothers & Co. Ltd., the assessee, the effect of a provision made for taxation by a limited company on the computation of its capital for the purpose of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, and of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, has to be determined. The relevant assessment years are 1963-64 and 1964-65. The accounting years involved are the years ended 31st December, 1962, and the 3Ist December, 1963.
(2.) The facts found and/or admitted in this reference may shortly be stated as follows : For the assessment year 1963-64, the assessee had claimed that in the computation of its capital a provision for taxation Of the amount of Rs. 16,48,888 should be treated either as a part of capital under the head "other reserves" under Rule 1 or as a deduction from cost of investments in terms of Clause (ii) of Rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963. This claim was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the said provision was only an amount set apart to meet the liability for taxation, considered as accruing on the last date of the accounting year, and could not be treated as a reserve. But the alternative contention that such a provision fell under Clause (ii) of Rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, was accepted and it was held that the said sum of Rs. 16,48,888 on account of this provision for taxation had to be reduced from the cost of investments in computing the capital base.
(3.) In respect of the assessment year 1964-65 a sum of Rs. 17,52,920 had been laid out by the assessee as a provision for taxation and the assessee claimed that the said amount should either be treated as a reserve or as a deduction in arriving at the net cost of investments under the provisions of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the purpose of computation of the assessee's capital. The Income-tax Officer again disallowed the claim of the assessee but on appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld such claim on the alternative ground that it was to be deducted from the cost of investments under Rule 2(ii) of the Second Schedule of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.;