PREMIER CABLE CO. LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 143 · Decided: 23-03-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

PREMIER CABLE CO. LTD. 
A 
~ 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN 
MARCH 23, 1999 
[S.P. BHARUCHA AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] 
B 
Income Tax Act, 1961-Ss. 2(9), 33 and 80-J-Assessment year-
Determination of-Installation of machinery-Development rebate and 
deductions-Entitlement to carry forward for a period of 8 and 4 Assessment c 
Years-Change in the accounting year-No previous year relevant to the 
Assessment year-Effect of-Whether assessee entitled to extend period of 
-
Assessment year for carrying forward development rebate and deductions? 
, Held; No, Assessment year is a standard period of twelve months which is 
invariable-Assessee not having any previous year relevant to the Assessment 
year tzas no consequence in calculating the Assessment periods for deductions D 
and rebate. 
Words & Phrases: 
''Assessment year' '-Meaning and scope of in the context of Sec. 2(9) 
E 
of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 
Appellant-assessee, installed machinery in the previous year relevant 
to the Assessment year 1967-68. Under Ss. 33 and 80-J of the Income Tax 
Act, 1961, assessee was entitled to carry forward the unabsorbed development 
rebate and deduction for a period of 8 and 4 Assessment years respectively. F 
On assessee's request, the accounting year was changed from the year 
.. 
ending 31st March to the year ending 31st September. Consequently, the 
Income-Tax Officer, passed an assessment order allowing the assessee to 
carry forward the unabsorbed development rebate and deduction beyond the 
period of8 and 4 Assessment years to the Assessment year 1976-77. However, 
G 
the Commissioner of Income-Tax, by reopening the said assessment order, 
disallowed the extension of Assessment period. Assessee unsuccessfully 
challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax before Appellate 
Tribunal and High Court. Hence the present appeals. 
On behalf of appellant it was contended that due to change in the H 
143 
144 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 2 S.C.R. 
A accounting year it had no previous year r~levant to the Assessment year 
1975-76 and that, therefore, it had no Assessment year 1975-76. Thus, it 
was entitled to carry forward the unabsorboo development rebate and deduction 
for 8 and 4 Assessment years respectively to the Assessment year 1976-77. 
B 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. Appellant-assessee was not entitled to carry forward under 
sections 33 and 80J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the unabsorbed development 
rebate and deductions to an extended period of Assessment year 1976-77, on 
the ground that there was no previous year relevant to the Assessment year. 
C 
(148-E-G] 
1.2. Section 2(9) of the Act defines the Assessment year to be the 
period of 12 months commencing on the first day of April every year. It is 
a standard period of 12 months commencing on lst April of every year. It 
does not depend upon one or other assessee and whether or not he had a 
D ·previous year relevant to a particular Assessment year. It is as invariable 
as ~he calendar year. The "assessment year mentioned in section 33 and 80J 
must be read in this light The unabsorbed development rebate under section 
33 and the unasbsorbed deduction under section 80J may be carried forward 
only for the 8 and 4 Assessment years respectively that follow the Assessment 
E year relevant to the previous year in which the said development rebate and 
deduction were first earned. The fact that, in the instant case, the asessee 
did not have a previous year relevant to a particular Assessment year that 
fell within these spans of 8 and 4 Assessment years respectively is of no 
consequence to the calculation of the periods for which the aforesaid 
F development rebate and deduction can be carried forward. 
(149-G-H; 150-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 393-94 of 
1992. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.5.91 of the Kerala High Court in 
l.T.R. Nos. 417/82 and 375of1985. 
T.L.V. Iyer, Mrs. A.K. Verma and M/s J.B.D. & Co. for the Appellant. 
Ranbir Chandera, Mrs. Neeru Gupta and B.K. Prasad for the Respondent. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
-.. 
.. 
... 
,. 
PREMIER CABLE CO. LTD. v. C.I.T. [BHARUCHA, J.] 
145 
BHARUCHA, J. The basic questions with which we are concerned in A 
these appeals, relating to the Assesssment Year 1976-77, read thus: 
"(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was 
the Tribunal right in holding that the Commissioner of Income Tax had 
jurisdiction u/s

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.