UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this reference, under Sub-section (1) of Section 256 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1967-68, the following questions have been referred to this court for answer ;

(2.) In order to appreciate these questions, it is necessary to state certain facts. The assessee is a limited company and, as mentioned hereinbefore, the reference relates to the assessment year 1967-68. The assessee-company under an agreement dated August 16, 1963, had taken a loan from the Export Import Bank of Washington for making payment in the United States of America of the price of capital plant and machinery purchased for the new project, viz., a petrochemical undertaking. The loan was taken and repayable in dollars. This is an important fact which is to be borne in mind. Out of this loan, which the assessee-company took from the Export Import Bank, payment was made for capital plant and machinery purchased from the various suppliers in the United States of America and the plant and machinery so purchased were shipped to India for installation in the petrochemical undertaking. On June 6, 1966, there was devaluation of the Indian rupee and, therefore, the liability of the assessee-company for repayment of loan to the Export Import Bank in dollars increased in terms of rupees to Rs. 1,75,99,854. This increased liability was accounted for by the assessee-company by crediting the Export Import Bank and debiting Rs. 1,09,24,932 to the plant and machinery account, Rs. 98,766 to the building account and Rs. 65,74,256 to the capital work-in-progress. The assessee-company claimed before the ITO that the increased liability of Rs. 1,75,99,854 arising out of devaluation of the Indian rupee on June 6, 1966, should be allowed as deduction in computing the business income. Alternatively, it was claimed by the assessee-company that the amount of Rs. 1,09,24,832, attributable to the plant and machinery account, development rebate should be allowed. The ITO rejected both these claims. The assessee-company thereafter preferred an appeal before the AAC. The AAC, relying on some other point, upheld the findings of the ITO on these two aspects. The assessee-company thereafter preferred a further appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on a consideration of the rival contentions made before it, had held as follows:

(3.) Upon this, the aforesaid questions have been referred to us.