ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Section 40(b)
limits the deduction, in the hands of a partnership firm, in respect of an
expenditure on specified kinds of payments to partners. Amongst several
limitations provided in respect of deduction to be claimed by the partnership
firm, clause (5) of section 40(b) limits the deduction for remuneration to the
working partners to the specified percentage of the ‘book profit’ of the firm.
The term ‘book
profit’ is defined exhaustively by Explanation 3 to section 40(b) which reads
as under:
‘Explanation 3 –
For the purpose of this clause, “book profit” means the net profit, as shown in
the profit and loss account for the relevant previous year, computed in the
manner laid down in Chapter IV-D as increased by the aggregate amount of the
remuneration paid or payable to all the partners of the firm if such amount has
been deduced while computing the net profit.’
‘Book profit’, as per Explanation 3, means the net profit as per the
profit and loss account of the relevant year, computed in the manner laid down
in Chapter IV-D. The net profit in question is the one that is shown in the
profit and loss account which is computed in the manner laid down in Chapter
IV-D. This requirement to compute the net profit in the manner laid down in
Chapter IV-D has been the subject matter of debate. Section 32, which is part
of Chapter IV-D, provides for the depreciation allowance in computing the
income of the year and, inter alia, sub-section (2) provides for the
manner in which the unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years is to be
adjusted against the income of the year. The interesting issue which has arisen
with respect to the computation of ‘book profit’ for the purpose of section
40(b) is whether the net profit for the year should also be reduced by the
unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years and whether the amount of remuneration
to the partners eligible for deduction should be computed with respect to such
reduced amount.
The Jaipur bench of
the Tribunal has held that in computing the ‘book profit’ and the amount
eligible for deduction on account of the remuneration to partners, unabsorbed
depreciation of the earlier years should be deducted from the net profit for
the year as provided in section 32(2). As against this, the Pune bench of the
Tribunal has taken a contrary view and has allowed the assessee firm’s claim of
the remuneration paid to its partners which was computed on the basis of ‘book
profit’ without reducing it by the unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier
years.
THE VIKAS OIL MILLS CASE
The issue first
came up for consideration of the Jaipur bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vikas
Oil Mills vs. ITO (2005) 95 TTJ 1126.
In that case, for
the assessment year 2001-02 the A.O. disallowed the remuneration amounting to
Rs. 1,79,005 paid to the working partners on the ground that the assessee firm
had not reduced the unabsorbed brought-forward depreciation of earlier years
from the profit of the year under consideration while claiming deduction for
the remuneration payable to the partners. Since the resultant figure after
reducing the unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years from the profit of the
assessee firm was a negative figure, the A.O. disallowed the remuneration paid
to the partners. The CIT(A) confirmed this order.
The assessee argued
before the Tribunal that the unabsorbed depreciation was allowed to be deducted
only because of a fiction contained in section 32(2) and that otherwise the
deduction was subject to the provisions of section 72(2). Hence, unabsorbed
depreciation should not be considered for computation of net profit in Chapter
IV-D. On the other hand, the Departmental representative supported the orders
of the lower authorities by submitting that unabsorbed depreciation of earlier
years was part of the current year’s depreciation as per section 32(2) which
fell in Chapter IV-D and, therefore, for computation of book profit unabsorbed
depreciation was to be necessarily taken into account.
The Tribunal
concurred with the view of the lower authorities and held that the remuneration
paid to the working partners was to be reduced from the book profit as per the
provisions of section 40(b)(v). The definition of book profit was provided in
Explanation 3 as per which it was required to be computed in the manner laid
down in Chapter IV-D. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the unabsorbed
depreciation of earlier years had to be reduced as provided in section 32(2)
while determining the book profit for the purpose of determining the amount of
deductible remuneration. However, the Tribunal agreed with the alternative plea
of the assessee for allowing the minimum amount of remuneration which was
allowable even in case of a loss.
RAJMAL LAKHICHAND CASE
The issue
thereafter came up for consideration before the Pune bench of the Tribunal in
the case of Rajmal Lakhichand vs. JCIT (2018) 92 taxmann.com 94.
In this case, for
the assessment year 2010-11 the A.O. disallowed the remuneration to working
partners amounting to Rs. 17,50,000 on the ground that the unabsorbed
depreciation of earlier years was not reduced in computing the book profit
which was contrary to the provisions of section 40(b). Upon further appeal, the
CIT(A) deleted this disallowance by holding that the remuneration to partners
was to be worked out on the basis of the current year’s book profit and
therefore the remuneration was to be deducted first before allowing the set-off
of brought-forward losses. He held that the computation of book profit was as
per section 40(b) while the set-off of brought-forward losses was to be granted
in terms of section 72. Therefore, while arriving at the business income, the
deduction of section 40(b) was to be given first and then, if at all there
remained positive income, the brought-forward losses were to be set off.
Before the
Tribunal, the Income-tax Department assailed the findings of the CIT(A) on the
ground that the unabsorbed brought-forward depreciation became a part of the
current year’s depreciation as per the provisions of section 32(2) and that as
per Chapter IV-D, the book profit was determined only after deduction of
depreciation including unabsorbed depreciation. Since, in the assessee’s case,
there was a loss after deduction of unabsorbed brought-forward depreciation to
the tune of Rs. 10,84,75,430 remuneration to the extent of only Rs. 1,50,000
should have been allowed. Reliance was placed on the decision in Vikas
Oil Mills (Supra).
As against that,
the assessee submitted that the remuneration paid to the partners was to be
based on the current year’s book profit derived before deducting the unabsorbed
depreciation and that the set-off of unabsorbed losses and depreciation was
governed by section 72. The unabsorbed business losses were to be set off first
and then the unabsorbed depreciation was to be considered.
The Tribunal upheld
the order of the CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of remuneration paid to the
working partner by the assessee-firm. In addition to accepting the contention
of the assessee, the Tribunal also relied upon the decision of the Ahmedabad
bench of the Tribunal in the case of Yogeshwar Developers vs. ITO [IT
Appeal No. 1173/AHD/2014 for assessment year 2005-06 decided on 13th
April, 2017]. The decision of the Jaipur bench in the case of
Vikas Oil Mills (Supra) cited before the Tribunal by the Income-tax
Department was not followed by the bench.
OBSERVATIONS
Sub-section (2) of
section 32 provides that where full effect cannot be given to the depreciation
allowance for any previous year, then the depreciation remaining to be absorbed
shall be added to the amount of the depreciation allowance for the following
previous year and deemed to be part of the depreciation allowance for that
year. It further provides that if there is no such depreciation allowance for
the succeeding previous year, then that unabsorbed depreciation of the
preceding previous year itself shall be deemed to be the depreciation allowance
for that year. However, such a treatment of unabsorbed depreciation u/s 32(2)
is subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 72 and sub-section
(3) of section 73 under which first brought-forward business loss needs to be set
off and then unabsorbed depreciation. Therefore, in a situation where the
assessee has brought-forward business loss as well as unabsorbed depreciation,
the combined reading of sections 32 and 72 or 73 required that the
brought-forward business loss shall be set off first against the income of the
previous year and then against the unabsorbed depreciation.
As per
Explanation-3 to section 40(b), all the deductions as provided in Chapter IV-D
including depreciation allowance provided in section 32 have to be taken into
consideration while determining the book profit. Since the provision of section
32(2) treats the unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years at par with the
depreciation allowance of the current year, except where there is a
brought-forward business loss, the issue as to whether the unabsorbed
depreciation should also be deducted from the book profit requires deeper
analysis.
Though the literal
interpretation of all the provisions concerned may appear to support the view
that the amount of depreciation allowance, whether of the current year or the
one which is of the earlier years and has remained unabsorbed, should be
reduced from the net profit for the purpose of arriving at the book profit, one
needs to also consider the legislative history as well as the intent of the
provisions of section 32(2) before accepting the literal interpretation. The
present provision of section 32(2) as it stands today was brought in force by
the Finance Act, 2001 by substituting the old provision with effect from assessment
year 2002-03. The old provision of section 32(2), prior to its substitution by
the Finance Act, 2001, was effective for the assessment years 1997-98 to
2001-02 and it read as under:
(2) Where in the
assessment of the assessee full effect cannot be given to any allowance under
clause (ii) of sub-section (1) in any previous year owing to there being no
profits or gains chargeable for that previous year or owing to the profits or
gains being less than the allowance, then, the allowance or the part of
allowance to which effect has not been given (hereinafter referred to as
unabsorbed depreciation allowance), as the case may be,
(i) shall be set off against the profits and gains,
if any, of any business or profession carried on by him and assessable for that
assessment year;
(ii) if the unabsorbed depreciation allowance cannot
be wholly set off under clause (i), the amount not so set off shall be set off
from the income under any other head, if any, assessable for that assessment
year;
if the unabsorbed
depreciation allowance cannot be wholly set off under clause (i) and clause
(ii), the amount of allowance not so set off shall be carried forward to the
following assessment year and,
(a) it shall be
set off against the profits and gains, if any, of any business or profession
carried on by him and assessable for that assessment year;
(b) if the
unabsorbed depreciation allowance cannot be wholly so set off, the amount of
unabsorbed depreciation allowance not so set off shall be carried forward to
the following assessment year not being more than eight assessment years
immediately succeeding the assessment year for which the aforesaid allowance
was first computed.
It is significant
to note that for the assessment years up to 2001-02, the unabsorbed depreciation
did not become part of the current year’s depreciation and was not to be
reduced from the net profit for the purposes of section 40(b) of the Act; in
short, it was not to be reduced from the book profit. It can be noticed that
the manner in which the unabsorbed depreciation is treated under the old
provision differed greatly from the manner in which it is treated under the
present provision. One of the glaring differences is that before the amendment
it was not being treated as part of the depreciation allowance for the current
year. Instead, it was required to be set off against the profits and gains of
business or profession separately. Sub-clause (a) of clause (iii) of the old
provision made this expressly clear by providing that unabsorbed depreciation
allowance was to be set off against the profits and gains of any business or
profession assessable for the subsequent assessment year as such and not as a
part of the depreciation allowance of that year. Further, the amount against
which the unabsorbed depreciation allowance was required to be set off was the
profits and gains of any business or profession carried on by the assessee and
assessable for that assessment year. The assessable profits and gains of any
business or profession for the purpose was necessarily the profits determined
after claiming all the permissible deductions, including remuneration to the
partners, subject to the limitations provided in section 40(b). Any other
interpretation or connotation was not possible; a contrary interpretation would
have needed an express provision to that effect which was not the case.
As a result, the
requirement under the then Explanation-3 to section 40(b) to compute the book
profit in the manner laid down in Chapter IV-D was to exclude the set-off of
unabsorbed depreciation. Any interpretation otherwise would have led to an
unworkable situation whereunder the amount of unabsorbed depreciation which
could have been set off would then be dependent upon the amount of the
deductible remuneration, and the amount of the deductible remuneration would in
turn be dependent upon the amount of unabsorbed depreciation that could be set
off.
Having analysed the
position under the old provision of section 32(2), let us consider the
objective of its substitution by the Finance Act, 2001 with effect from 1st
April, 2002. The Memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance
Bill, 2001, which is reproduced below, explains the legislative intent behind
the amendment.
Modification of
provisions relating to allowance of depreciation
Under the
existing provision of sub-section (2) of section 32 of the Income-tax Act,
carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation is allowed for 8
assessment years.
With a view to
enable the assessee to conserve sufficient funds to replace capital assets,
specially in an era where obsolescence takes place so often, the Bill proposes
to dispense with the restriction of 8 years for carry forward and set off of
unabsorbed depreciation.
It can be observed
that the limited purpose of substituting the provision of sub-section (2) of
section 32 was to relax the limitation of eight years over the carry forward of
unabsorbed depreciation. It is worth noting that in order to achieve this
objective, the old provision as it existed prior to its amendment by the
Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996, was being restored. Therefore, effectively, the
present provision of sub-section (2) of section 32 is the same as the provision
as it existed prior to its amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996. It was
only for the period starting from the assessment year 1997-98 to 2002-03 that
the provision was different.
In the context of
the old provision prevailing up to assessment year 1996-97, the Supreme Court
in the case of CIT vs. Mother India Refrigeration Industries (P) Ltd.
(1985) 155 ITR 711 has held as follows:
‘It is true that
proviso (b) to section 10(2)(vi) creates a legal fiction and under that fiction
unabsorbed depreciation either with or without current year’s depreciation is deemed to be
the current year’s depreciation but it is well settled that legal fictions are
created only for some definite purposes and these must be limited to that
purpose and should not be extended beyond that legitimate field. Clearly, the
avowed purpose of the legal fiction created by the deeming provision contained
in proviso (b) to section 10(2)(vi) is to make the unabsorbed carried forward
depreciation partake of the same character as the current depreciation in the
following year, so that it is available, unlike unabsorbed carried forward
business loss, for being set off against other heads of income of that year.
Such being the purpose for which the legal fiction is created, it is difficult
to extend the same beyond its legitimate field and will have to be confined to
that purpose.’
In view of these
observations of the Supreme Court and the legislative intent behind section
32(2), it can be inferred that the only purpose of deeming the unabsorbed
depreciation as the depreciation allowance of the current year, post amendment,
is limited to ensuring the benefit of its set off, irrespective of the number
of years, against any income, irrespective of the head of income under which it
falls. In other words the intention has never been to treat it as part of the depreciation of the year.
Further, in a
situation where the assessee has both, i.e., unabsorbed depreciation and
business loss brought forward from earlier years, the set off of business loss
in terms of sections 72 or 73 needs to be given a preference over set-off of
unabsorbed depreciation as per section 72(2). This again confirms that the
unabsorbed depreciation is given a separate treatment than the business loss
and both are intended to be distinct and separate from each other. The Supreme
Court, in the case of CIT vs. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P) Ltd. 59 ITR
555, had held that the reason for such order of allowance is as under:
‘The unabsorbed depreciation allowance is carried
forward under proviso (b) to section 10(2)(vi) of the 1922 Act and the method
of carrying it forward is to add it to the amount of the allowance of
depreciation in the following year and deeming it to be part of that allowance;
the effect of deeming it to be part of that allowance is that it falls in the
following year within clause (vi) and has to be deducted as allowance. If the
legislature had not enacted proviso (b) to section 24(2) of the 1922 Act, the
result would have been that depreciation allowance would have been deducted
first out of the profits and gains in preference to any losses which might have
been carried forward under section 24 of the 1922 Act, but as the losses can be
carried forward only for six years under section 24(2) of the 1922 Act, the
assessee would in certain circumstances have in his books losses which he would
not be able to set off. It seems that the legislature, in view of this gave a
preference to the deduction of losses first.’
The set off of
business loss is governed by section 72 which is part of Chapter VI and not
Chapter IV-D and, therefore, is not required to be considered while computing
the book profit for the purpose of section 40(b). Hence, it would be absurd and
contrary to the provisions to set off the unabsorbed depreciation first only
for the purpose of arriving at the book profit for the purpose of section
40(b), though unabsorbed depreciation is to be set off only after brought-forward
business losses are exhausted in accordance with section 72(2).
Further, if one
analyses the definition of book profits as contained in Explanation 3 to
section 40(b), it refers to ‘net profit, as shown in the profit and loss
account for the relevant previous year…’
Therefore, clearly, the intention is only to consider the profit of the
relevant year and not factor in adjustments permissible against such profits
relating to earlier years, such as unabsorbed depreciation.
The better view, in our considered opinion,
therefore is that the brought-forward depreciation should not be deducted while
computing the book profit for the purpose of
section 40(b).
