Case: M/S Mepco Industries Ltd.Madurai Vs. Commr.Of Income Tax

The appellant is engaged in the business of manufacture of Potassium Chlorates. Its factory is located in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The appellant received power subsidy for two years, which it initially offered as revenue receipt in its Return of Income. In the petitions filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, "the Act"], the assessee pleaded that the subsidy amount was a capital receipt, hence not liable to be taxed, and, accordingly, it sought revision of the assessment orders for Assessment Years 1993-1994 and 1994-1995. In the revision petitions, appellant had pleaded that the subsidy amount was a capital receipt and, for that purpose, it relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. P.J. Chemicals Limited, reported in [1994] 210 I.T.R.830. The revision petitions filed by the appellant under Section 264 of the Act stood allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax by order dated April 30, 1997. Subsequent to the said order, on 19th September, 1997, this Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited (supra) held that incentive subsidy admissible to Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited was a revenue receipt and, hence, it was liable to be taxed under Section 28 of the Act. This decision was based on a detailed examination of the Subsidy Scheme formulated by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. It stated that incentives would not be available unless and until production had commenced. In that matter, this Court found that incentives were given by refund of sales tax and by subsidy on power consumed for production. In short, on the facts and circumstances of that case, this Court came to the conclusion that incentives were production incentives in the sense that the assessee was entitled to incentives only after entering into production. It was also clarified that the Scheme was not to make any payment directly or indirectly for setting up the industries.Following the judgment of this Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited (supra), delivered on 19th September, 1997, the Commissioner of Income Tax passed an order of rectification dated 30th March, 1998. The only ground on which rectification was sought to be made by the Commissioner of Income Tax was that Power Tariff Subsidy given to the appellant herein was admissible only after commencement of production. Consequently, according to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Power Tariff Subsidy constituted operational subsidies, they were not capital subsidies and, in the circumstances, applying the ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited (supra), the Commissioner of Income Tax sought to rectify its earlier order dated 30th April, 1997, by invoking Section 154 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein filed writ petitions before the Madras High Court, which took the view that, in view of the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited (supra), the Department was entitled to invoke Section 154 of the Act and that the Commissioner was right in treating the receipt of subsidies as a revenue receipt. This decision of the learned Single Judge has been affirmed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. Hence, these appeals by special leave.

Reasoning:
On the facts of the present case, we are of the view that the present case involves change of opinion. In this connection, it must be noted that Government grants different types of subsidies to the entrepreneurs. The subsidy in Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited (supra) was an incentive subsidy linked to production. In fact, in Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited (supra) [at page 257], this Court categorically stated that the Scheme in hand was an incentive Scheme and it was not a Scheme for setting up the industries. In the said case, the salient features of the Scheme were examined and it was noticed that the Scheme formulated by the Government of Andhra Pradesh was admissible only after the commencement of production. In Income Tax matters, one has to examine the nature of the item in question, which would depend on the facts of each case. In the present case, we are concerned with power subsidy whereas in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Limited, reported in [2008] 306 I.T.R.392, the subsidy given by the Government was for re-paying loans. Therefore, in each case, one as to examine the nature of subsidy. This exercise cannot be undertaken under Section 154 of the Act. There is one more reason why Section 154 in the present case was not invokable by the Department. Originally, the Commissioner of Income Tax, while passing orders under Section 264 of the Act on 30th April, 1997, had taken the view that the subsidy in question was a capital receipt not taxable under the Act. After the judgment of this Court in Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited (supra), the Commissioner of Income Tax has taken the view that the subsidy in question was a revenue receipt. Therefore, in our view, the present case is a classic illustration of change of opinionWe may now deal with the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Limited vs. Income Tax Officer, Calcutta & Ors., reported in [1981] 130 I.T.R. 710. In that case, the appellant-assessee derived profits from three industries, one of which qualified for special rebate under Part-I of Schedule-I to the Finance Act, 1965, for the Assessment Year 1966-1967. In granting this special rebate, the Income Tax Officer computed the profits attributable to that industry without deducting development rebate granted to the appellant. The Income Tax Officer sought to rectify the mistake under Section 154 of the Act by re-computing the profits by deducting the development rebate. The appellant filed a writ petition for setting aside the notice of rectification. It was held by the Calcutta High Court that since there was conflict of opinion on computation of profits of priority industry for granting tax relief which conflict was resolved by the Supreme Court later on for the subsequent Assessment Year 1967-1968, such subsequent decision of the Supreme Court did not obliterate the conflict of opinion prior to it. It was held that, under Section 154 of the Act, rectification was not permissible on debatable issueIn Kil Kotagiri Tea and Coffee Estates Company Limited vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Ors., reported in [1988] 174 I.T.R.579, the facts were as follows: the assessee claimed interest on advance tax paid by it in excess but beyond the due dates. The Income Tax Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax upheld the claim of the assessee. Following the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in A. Sethumadhavan vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1980] 122 I.T.R.587, the Tribunal held that belated payments were not to be taken into account as advance tax for the purpose of Section 214 of the Income Tax Act, and, therefore, interest was not admissible for such belated payments. However, subsequently, a Division Bench of the same High Court in Santha S. Shenoy vs. Union of India [1982] 135 I.T.R.39, reversed the decision of the learned Single Judge in A. Sethumadhavan (supra) and held that payment of tax made within the financial year, though not within specified dates, should be treated as advance tax and, consequently, the assessee was entitled to interest on excess tax paid. The assessee filed an application under Section 154 of the Act for rectification of the order of the Tribunal in view of the later decision in Santha S. Shenoy (supra). On the facts of that case, the Kerala High Court came to the conclusion that the rectification contemplated under Section 154 must be a `rectifiable mistake which is a mistake in the light of the law in force at the time when the order sought to be rectified was passed. The Kerala High Court also examined the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Limited (supra) and held that the said decision was distinguishable. The High Court laid down a principle of law, which was applicable across the board, namely, payment of advance tax made within the financial year, though not within the specified dates, should be treated as advance tax and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to interest on excess tax paid. The judgment in Kil Kotagiri Tea and Coffee Estates Company Limited (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as stated above. Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited & Ors. (supra) was a case which dealt with production subsidy, Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Limited (supra) dealt with subsidy linked to loan re-payment whereas the present case deals with a subsidy for setting up an industry in the backward area. Therefore, in each case, one has to examine the nature of the subsidy. The judgment of this Court in Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited & Ors. (supra) was on its own facts; so also, the judgment of this Court in Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Limited (supra). The nature of the subsidies in each of the three cases is separate and distinct. There is no straight-jacket principle of distinguishing a capital receipt from a revenue receipt. It depends upon the circumstances of each case. As stated above, in Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited & Ors. (supra), this Court has observed that the production incentive scheme is different from the Scheme giving subsidy for setting up industries in backward areas. In the circumstances, the present case is an example of change of opinion. Therefore, the Department has erred in invoking Section 154 of the ActBefore concluding, we may state that in Deva Metal Powders (P) Limited vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2008 (2) S.C.C.439, a Division Bench of this Court held that a `rectifiable mistake must exist and the same must be apparent from the record. It must be a patent mistake, which is obvious and whose discovery is not dependant on elaborate argumentsTo the same effect is the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta vs. A.S.C.U. Limited [2003] 151 E.L.T. 481, wherein it has been held that a `rectifiable mistake is a mistake which is obvious and not something which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning or where two opinions are possible. Decision on debatable point of law cannot be treated as "mistake apparent from the record".