DIPAK KUMAR SEN, J. - (1.) IN this application, the CIT, West Bengal--1, seeks a certificate from us that the judgment delivered by the Court in IT Ref. No. 32 of 1977 dt. 6th May, 1985, involves a substantial question of law and is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court.
(2.) IT appears from the said judgment dt. 6th May, 1985, that this Court followed its earlier decision in the case of the same assessee in CIT vs. Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. (1982) 138 ITR 111 (Cal). It was submitted on behalf of the applicant that subsequent to the said decision, the Supreme Court has further laid down the law on the controversy in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1981) 25 CTR (SC) 186 : (1981) 132 ITR 559 (SC). The question involved in the present proceedings was whether the special appropriation for plant expansion and contingencies constituted reserves for the purpose of computing capital under the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Sur-tax Act, 1964. It was submitted that the said items were not specifically considered in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and, therefore, the matter needs further consideration by the Supreme Court.
(3.) WE are unable to accept the contentions of the applicant. Similar submissions were made before this Court in CIT vs. Sijua (Jharriah) Electric Supply Co. Ltd. (1986) 54 CTR (Cal) 114 : (1986) 158 ITR 332 (Cal), where the items involved were reserve for contingencies and reserve for debenture redemption for the purpose of computation of the capital under the Companies (Profits) Sur-tax Act, 1964. In that case the earlier decision of this Court in CIT vs. Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. (supra) was followed. The decision of the Supreme Court in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) was also cited and considered. It was noted in the said judgment that the Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition filed by the Revenue against a decision of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. Palani Andavar Mills (P.) Ltd. (1983) 144 ITR 138 (Mad), where the question involved was whether the contingency reserve was includible in computing the capital of a company for the purpose of sur-tax. It was held that such a contingency reserve was in the nature of general reserve and was includible for the purpose of computation of the capital.;