Summarize the following court judgment. No. 147 of 1972. (Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.1971 of the Calcutta High Court in Income Tax Ref. No. 98/67) G.C. Sharma	 D.N. Mukherjee	 A. K. Ganguly and G.S. Chatterjee	 for the appellants. B.B. Ahuja and R.N. Sachthey	 for respondent. G.C. Sharma	 D.K. Jain	 Anup Sharma	 S.P. Nayar and Miss K. Jaiswal for the Intervener. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA J. Whether any payment by a Company	 not being a Company in which the public are subsantially interested within the meaning of section 23A	 of any sum by way of advance or loan to a shareholder	 not exceeding the accumulated profits possessed by the Company	 is to be deemed as his dividend under Section 2(6A) (e) read with Section 12(lB) of the Income tax Act	 1922	 even if that advance or loan is subsequently repaid in its entirely during the relevant previous year in which it was taken	 is the only question that falls to be determined in this appeal by special leave. The assessment year is 1957 58	 and the corresponding previous year is the calendar year 1956. The assessee is a shareholder and the Managing Director of M/s. Dolaguri Tea Co. (P) Ltd. The Company is admittedly one in which the public are not substantially interested within the meaning of section 23A of the Indian Income tax Act	 1922 (for short	 the Act). At the commencement of the previous year	 there was in the books of the Company a credit balance of Rs. 65	246/ in the assessee 's account	 which had been brought ' forward from the earlier year. Between the 11th January and the 12th November	 1956	 the assessee withdrew in cash from time to time from the Company	 amounts	 aggregating Rs. 4	97	442/ . The first two cash amounts of Rs. 3	50	000/ and Rs. 40	400/ 	 were taken by the assessee on 11.1.1966. Deducting therefrom the opening balance of Rs. 65	246/ and two more item	 namely	 Rs. 1	40	000/ being outstand ing dividends declared on 31.12.1955 of his major son	 and transferred to his account	 and a further dividend of Rs. 19	493/ credited to his account from Kathoni Tea Estate	 there remained a sum of Rs. 2	72	703/ to the debit of the assessee 700 in the books of the Company as on the 12th November	 1956. On December 29	 1956	 the assessee paid back to the Company a sum of Rs. 1	90	000/ . On December 31	 1956	 his account was credited with another sum of Rs. 80	000/ in respect of the dividend due to him and his wife	 and with a further sum of Rs. 29	326/ for hypotecation. In this manner before the end of the previous year	 the assessee 's account was credited with an aggregated amount of Rs. 2	99	326/ which exceeded the debit balance of Rs. 2	72	70	3/ as on November 12	 1956. Thus at the end of the relevant previous year	 no advance or loan was due to the Company by the assessee. The Income tax Officer found that the accumulated prof its of the Company as on January 1	 1956	 amounted to Rs. 6	83	005. He	 therefore	 deducted the two aforesaid items of Rs. 1	40	000/ and Rs. 19	493/ 	 aggregating Rs. 1	59	493/ 	 from the amount paid in cash to the assessee and treated the balance of Rs. 2	72	703/ as the net 'dividend ' income in the hands of the assessee within the meaning of Section 2 (6A)(e). The/income tax Officer grossed up that amount under Section 16(2) and gave credit for tax in ac cordance with that Section to the assessee. The assessee 's appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner having failed	 he preferred a further appeal to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal. There was a divergence of opinion between the Members of the Tribunal. The Ac countant Member took the view that the moment a payment is made as envisaged in Section 2(6A)(c) it becomes clothed with the character of a dividend and has to be treated as such income of the assessee	 and no subsequent action or repayment by the share holder can take it out of the mis chief of this provision. He therefore held that the sum of Rs. 2	72	703/ was taxable dividend under Section 2(6A)(e). The Judicial Member expressed a contrary opinion. In his view	 the total income of the assessee during the rele vant previous year could be computed and assessed only at the end of that year; it could not be computed at interim periods during the previous year. "If it is found that although the shareholder had taken by way of advance or loan an amount from the Company during the course of a previous year but had returned the same to the Company before the close of that previous year	 it can only be said while computing the shareholder 's total income at the end of that previous year that no advance or loan from the 23A Company of which he was a shareholder stood for his benefit at the time relevant for computation of his total income. The advances or loans taken during the interim periods of the previous year would just have to be ignored. " On these premises	 the Judicial Member came to the conclusion that the sum of Rs. 2	72	703/ grossed up to Rs. 3	19	245/ 	 was not a dividend within the fiction under Section 2(6A) (e) of the Act. On account of this difference of opinion	 the following question was referred to the President of the Tribunal: "Whether on the facts and in the circum stances of the case	 the sum of Rs. 2	72	703/ net (Rs. 3	19	245/ gross) 701 is to be treated as dividend income in the hands of the assessee within the meaning of Section 2(6A) (e) ?" The President agreed with the Accountant Member and held that an "advance or loan received by the shareholder of a Private Company forthwith assumes the character of a divi dend and becomes his income by virtue of the fiction created by Section 2(6A) (e) and it ceases to be a liability for the purpose of taxation	 although the assessee may	 in fact or in law	 remain liable to the Company to repay it. If the assessee repays the loan subsequently	 such repayment would not liquidate or reduce the quantum of the income which had already accrued as such repayment is not be al lowed as a permissible deduction under Section 12(2). On these premises he answered the question in the affirma tive. In accordance with the majority opinion	 the Tribunal dismissed the assessee 's appeal	 but	 at his instance	 referred the same question for opinion to the High Court under Section 66(1) of the Act. The High Court held that the tax was attracted at the point of time when the said loan was borrowed by the share holder and it was immaterial whether the loan was repaid before the end of the accounting year or not. On this reasoning it answered the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Hence this appeal by the assessee. Before dealing with the contentions canvassed	 it is necessary to have a look at the general scheme and the relevant provisions of the Act	 Section 2 (6A)(e) of the Act reads as follows: (6A) "dividend" includes (a) to (d) . (e) any payment by a company	 not being a company in which the public are substantially interested within the meaning of section 23A of any sum (whether as representing a part of the assets of the company or otherwise) by way of advance or loan to a shareholder or any payment by any such company on behalf or for the individual benefit of a shareholder	 to the extent to which the company in either case possesses accumulated profits; but "dividend" does not include (i) a distribution made in accordance with sub clause (c) or sub clause (d) in respect of any share issued for full cash consideration where the holder of the share is not entitled in the event of liquidation to participate in the surplus assets; (ii) any advance or loan made to a share holder by a company in the ordinary course of its business where the lending of money is a substantial part of the business of the compa ny; 702 (iii) any dividend paid by a company which is set off by the company against the whole or any part of any sum previously paid by it and treated as a dividend within the meaning of clause (e)	 to the extent to which it is so set off; Explanation. The expression "accumulated profits"	 wherever it occurs in this clause	 shall not include capital gains arising before the 1st day of April	 1946	 or after the 31st day of March	 1948	 and be fore the 1st day of April	 1956; Sub section (15) defines 'total income ' as meaning "total amount of income	 profits and gains referred to in sub section (1 ) of Section 4 computed in the manner laid down in this Act." Section 3 is the charging section. Two of the princi ples deducible from the Section are: (1 ) That the tax is levied on the total income of the assessable entity; (2) That each previous year is a distinct unit of time for the purpose of assessment	 and the profits made or liabilities or losses incurred before or after the relevant previous year are wholly immaterial in assessing the profits of that year unless there is a statu tory provision to the contrary. Section 4 (1 ) so far as it is material reads as follows: "Section 4(1): Subject to the provisions of this Act	 the total ' income of any previous year of any person includes all income	 prof its and gains from whatever source derived which (a) are received or are deemed to be re ceived in the taxable territories in such year by or on behalf of such person	 or (b) if such person is resident in the taxa ble territories during such year	 (i) accrue or arise or any deemed to accrue or arise to him in the taxable territories during such year	 or (ii) accrue or arise to him without the taxable territories during such year	 or (iii) . . (c) if such person is not resident in the taxable territories during such year	 accrue or arise or are deemed to accrue or arise to him in the taxable territories during such year: (emphasis supplied) "Provided that . . " The principles deducible from Sec. 4(1) are: (1 ) The charge is on accrual or receipt basis. Such receipt or accrual may be actual or statutory	 i.e. the result of any statutory fiction created by the Act. 703 (2) If a particular amount of income is taxed under any of the clauses (a)	 (b) or (c) of the sub section the same amount cannot be taxed under any other clause either in the same year or in a different year. That is to say	 income which is taxed on accrual under clause (b) (ii) cannot be taxed again on receipt under clause (a) or on remittance under clause (b)(iii) (see Kanga and Palkhiwa la	 Vol. I	 1959 Edition	 page 153). (3) The receipt spoken of in this clause is the first receipt after the accrual of the income See the decision of this Court in Keshav Mills vs Commissioner of Income tax(1)]. Sub section (1) of Sec. 4 also highlights the basic principle embodied in the charging section 3	 that the accrual or receipt of income (actual or deemed) is taxed with regard to the relevant previous year. Section 12 deals with the residuary head: "Income from other sources". Its sub section (1A) says that: "Income from other sources shah include 'dividends '. Sub section (lB) in crucial. It provides: "Any payment by a company to a share holder by way of advance or loan which would have been treated as a dividend within the meaning of clause (e) of sub section (6A) of section 2 in any previous year relevant to any assessment year prior to the assessment year ending on the 31st day of March	 1956 had that clause been in force in that year	 shall be treated as a dividend received by him in the previous year relevant to the assessment year ending on the 31st day of March	 1956	 if such loan or advance remained outstanding on the first day of such previous year". Sub section (2)	 inter alia lays down that in computing any income by way of dividend	 allowance shah be given for any reasonable sum paid by way of commission or remuneration to a banker or any other person realising such dividend on behalf of the assessee. It is to be noted that sub section (6A) of section 2 and subsections (1A) and (lB) u/s 12 were inserted in the Act by the Finance Act	 1955	 with effect from the 1 st April	 1956. In the relevant assessment year	 Section 16(2) of the Act was operative and ran as follows: "16(2) For the purpose of inclusion in the total income of an assessee any dividend shall be deemed to be income of the previous year in which it is paid	 credited or distributed or deemed to have been paid	 credited or (1) 704 distributed to him	 and shall be increased to such amount as would	 if income tax (but not super tax) at the rate applicable to the total income of the company . . for the finan cial year in which the dividend is paid	 credited or distributed or deemed to have been paid	 credited or distributed were deducted therefrom	 be equal to the amount of the dividend. " Mr. G.C. Sharma	 Counsel for the appellants contends that the scope of the fiction created by Sec. 2(6A)(e) should be confined to those advances and loans only	 which are not repaid but remain subsisting at the end of the previous year in which they were taken. It is argued that the sole object of this provision is to curb the evil of distributing profits under the guise of loans or advances; that if an advance or loan is repaid in the same accounting year	 it cannot be said that it was a device for distribu tion of profits. It is submitted that only in the case of an advance or loan which remains outstanding at the end of the accounting year	 Sec. 2(6A) (e) raises an irrebutable presumption that it was a payment of dividend under the cloak of a loan. It is maintained that if this construc tion of Sec. 2(6A)(e) is not adopted	 it will lead to ex tremely oppressive	 unreasonable and anamolous results	 including double taxation. To illustrate his point Counsel compares and contrasts the position of a shareholder who promptly	 after a short period	 repays the loan in the same year	 with one who does not do so but allows it to remain outstanding and be carried over to the next year	 and there after a dividend is declared. If the interpretation adopted by the High Court is correct says Mr. Sharma the share holder in the prior case who had promptly repaid the loan would not be entitled under sub clause (iii) of Clause (e) of section 2(6A) to set off any part of the subsequently declared dividend against the loan which he had repaid earlier	 but will have to pay double tax on the same item	 once on it as deemed dividend and then on it as declared dividend. His liability cannot be reduced to the extent of the dividend; because at the date on which the dividend was declared	 no loan was outstanding against which. it could be set off. As against the former	 the latter shareholder who makes full use of the loan and does not repay any part of the loan in the same year	 but leaves it unpaid till a dividend is declared next year	 will get relief by set off of the subse quently declared dividend	 in whole or in part against the loan outstanding against him. Another example cited by Mr. Sharma is of a case where the accumulated profit	 say is Rs. 9	000/ and the share holder takes an advance or loan of Rs. 3	000/ and he repays it after a week	 and again gets the same amount (Rs. 3	000/ ) back as a loan	 and again repays it after a week	 and again retakes the same amount as loan all the three loans being taken and repaid	 in the same year. If the unrestricted interpretation of the provision	 sought by the Revenue were to be adopted	 the same amount of loan in all the three transactions of loan would be subjected to triple taxation. Such an absurd and oppressive result	 says the Counsel	 would be against the intendment of the provi sion and inconsistent with the scheme of the Act which generally aims avoids double taxation. The upshot of the arguments of Mr. 705 Sharma is that under the Act	 only that item or entity is taxable which is rationally capable of being considered as the income of the assessee; that an advance or loan which is genuine and not a subterfuge for payment of dividend and is not subsisting or outstanding at the end of the previous year on account of its repayment by the shareholder cannot reasonably be deemed to be his dividend income within the contemplation of section 2(6A)(e) read with section 12 of the Act. Mr. Sharma has taken us through various decisions having a bearing on the problem. The cases referred to	 discussed or sought to be distinguished by him are: K.M.S. Lakshman Aiyar vs Assistant Income tax Officer	(1) Navnit Lal C. Javeri vs K.K. Sen	 Appellate Assistant Commissioner	 Income tax	 Bombay;(2) Commissioner of Income tax	 Madras vs K. Srini vasan; (3) Walchand & Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income tax	 Bombay;(4) Commissioner	 Income tax Bombay vs R.K. Badiani. (5) Mr. Sharma also has referred to Sec. 108 of the Commonwealth income tax Act as in force in Australia	 and submitted that since the substance of Sec. 2(6A)(e) and section 12(lB) has been borrowed from s.108 of the said Act and the object of these provisions in the two enactments is the same	 it will not be illegitimate to determine and circum scribe the scope of the fiction created by the provision in question in the light of the principles indicated in Sec. 108 of the Commonwealth Act. On the other hand	 Mr. Ahuja appearing for the Revenue	 submits that sub clause (iii) which permits a set off against a loan deemed as dividend	 does not apply in cases where the dividend is not declared in the same accounting year because to hold otherwise would be against the basic scheme ingrained in sections 3 and 4 of the Act	 according to which the unit of time for the purpose of assessment is the previous year of the assessee. Mr. Ahuja further maintains that even if during the same accounting year after repayment of the loan	 a dividend is declared	 sub clause (iii) will apply	 and the Income tax Officer will not be debarred from reducing	 in an appropriate case	 the amount treated by him as 'dividend ' under clause (e) of section 2(6A) to the extent of the subsequently declared dividend	 on the principle of notional set off underlying sub clause (iii). The point sought to be made out is that since the treatment of the loan to the assessee shareholder as his dividend rests on a legal fiction	 it will not be an illegitimate use of sub clause (iii) to allow a notional set off to meet such a situation. Thus construed	 says the Counsel	 there would be no anomaly. Mr. Ahuja further submitted that section 2(6A)(e) was enact ed to suppress the evil of receiving profits or dividends under the guise of loans by the shareholders of a controlled Company	 as such a malpractice resulted in evasion of tax. This provision	 it is urged should be construed in a manner which suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy. It is maintained that the language of the provisions in question (1) [1959] XL I.T.R.469 (Mad.) (2) [19651 1	 SCR 909 56 I.T.R. 198. (3) (4) (5) 706 is plain and unambiguous and no question of seeking external aid for its interpretation arises; the Court must give effect to it regardless of the hardship	 if any	 resulting therefrom. The sum and substance of his arguments is	 that since all the factual ingredients necessary for raising the fiction contemplated by section 2(6A) (e) and section 12(lB) have been found to exist by the Income tax authorities and the Tribu nal	 the loan had to be treated as the assessee 's dividend income	 the moment it was received	 and the subsequent repayment of the loan could not neutralise or take it out of that category of 'income '. Counsel has drawn our attention to the observations of this Court in Navnit Lal C. Javeri vs K.K. Sen	 Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income tax (supra). He has further adopted the reasoning of the Bombay High Court in Walchand & Co. vs Commissioner of Income tax	 Bombay (supra) Section 2(6A)(e) and section 12(lB) were inserted in the Act by. the Finance Act 1955 which came into operation on 1 4 1955. These provisions seem to have been adapted	 and borrowed with alterations	 from section 108 of the Commonwealth Income tax Assessment Act in force in Australia. Section 108 reads as follows: "Loans to shareholders	 (1 ) If amounts are paid or assets distributed by a private company to any of its shareholders by way of advances or loans	 or payments are made by the company on behalf of or for the individual benefit of	 any of its shareholders	 so much	 if any	 of the amount or value of those ad vances	 loans or payments	 as	 in the opinion of the Commissioner	 represents distributions of income shall	 for the proposes of this Act other than the purposes of Division 11A of Part III and Division 4 of Part VI be deemed to be dividends paid by the company on the last day of the year of income of the company in which the payment or distribution is made. (2) Where the amount or value of an advance	 loan or payment is deemed	 under the last preceding sub section	 to be a dividend paid by a company to a shareholder	 and the company subsequently sets off the whole or a part of a dividend distributed by it in satis faction in whole or in part of that advance	 loan or payment	 that dividend shall	 to the extent to which it is so set off	 be deemed	 not to be a dividend for any purpose of this Act. " It will be seen that under section 108( 1 ) formation of "the opinion of the Commissioner" is the sine qua non for bring ing this provision into provision into operation. It has been held be the Australian Board of Review that the mere fact that a shareholder in a private Company has become indebted to it	 does not justify the formation of the opin ion by the Commissioner such as is indicated in sub section (1) of section 108. "There must be something that goes beyond a mere debt automatically arising upon a taking of accounts and which points to a subterfuge whereby a payment which	 upon examination	 is found to relate to the income of the Company and to represent the distribution thereof	 is made to appear to be a loan or advance" (I.C.T.B.R. (N.S.) Case No.80.) 707 It is noteworthy that at least in one material aspect the Indian law is different from that under section 108(1) of the Commonwealth Act as explained and interpreted by the Board in the case mentioned above. Under section 108	 the raising of the fiction is dependent upon a positive finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income tax that the payment represents distribution of the Company 'section income. But section 2 (6A) (e) and section 12 of the Act do not leave this question to the adjudica tion of the income tax authorities. Parliament has itself	 in the exercise of its legislative judgment	 raised a con clusive presumption	 that in all cases where loans are advanced to a shareholder in a Private Ltd. Company ' having accumulated profits	 the advances should be deemed to be the dividend income of the shareholder. It is this presumption juris et de jure which is the foundation of the statutory fiction incorporated in section 2(6A)(e). Thus section 108 of the Commonwealth Act appears to be more reasonable and less harsh than its Indian counterpart. From the above discussion it emerges clear that the fiction created 2(6A) (e) read with section 12(lB) of the Act is inexora bly attracted as soon as all the conditions necessary for its application exist in a case. In Navnit Lags case (supra)	 this Court	 after an analysis of these provisions	 listed these conditions	 as follows: ". the combined effect of these two provisions is that three kinds of payments made to the. shareholder of a company to which the said provisions apply	 are treated as taxable dividend to the extent of the accumu lated profits held by the :company. These three kinds of payments are: (1 ) payments made to the shareholder by way of advance or loan	 (2) payments made on his behalf and (3) payments made for his individual benefit. There are five conditions which must be satis fied before section 12(lB) can be invoked against a shareholder. The first condition is that the company in question must be one in which the public are not 'substantially interested within the meaning of section 23A as it stood in the year in which the loan was advanced. The second condition is that the borrower must be a shareholder at the date 'when the loan was advanced; it is immaterial what the extent of his shareholding is. The third condition is that the loan advanced to a shareholder by such a company can be deemed to be dividend only to the extent to which it is shown that the company possessed accumulated profit at the date of the loan. This is an important limit prescribed by the relevant section. The fourth condition is that the loan must not have been advanced by ' the company in the ordinary course of its busi ness. In other word 's	 this provision would not apply to cases where the company which advances a loan to its shareholder earnes on the business of money lending itself; and the last condition is that the loan must have remained outstanding at the commencement of the shareholders previous year in relation to the assessment year 1955 56." (emphasis supplied) The first four conditions factually exist in the instant case. The last condition is not applicable because it was a transitory provision 6 707 SCI 77 708 applicable to the assessment year 1955 56 only	 while we are concerned with the assessment year 1957 58 and the previous year is the calendar year 1956. There is no dispute that the company is a controlled (Private Ltd.) company in which the public are not substantially interested within the meaning of section 23A. Further the assessee is admittedly a shareholder and Managing Director of that Company. It is also beyond controversy that at all material times	 the company possessed "accumulated profits" in excess of the amount which the assessee shareholder was paid during the previous year. The Income tax Officer found that on January 1	 1956	 the accumulated profits of the Company amounted to Rs. 6	83	005/ while from	 11.1.1956 to 12.11.1956	 the assessee received in cash from time to time from the Company payments aggregating Rs. 4	97	449/ . After deducting the opening credit balance and some other items credited to his account	 the Income tax Officer found that in the previous year the assessee share holder had received a net payment of Rs. 2	72	703/ by way of loan or advance from the Compa ny. The Company 's ' business is not money lending and it could not be said that the loans had been advanced by the company in the ordinary course of its business. Thus all the factual conditions for raising statutory fiction created by ss.2(6A)(e) and 12(IB) appeared to have been satisfied in the instant case. Mr. Sharma	 however	 contends that in order to attract the statutory fiction one other essential condition is	 that the loan or advance must be outstanding at the end of the previous year	 and if the loan had ceased to exist owing to repayment or otherwise before the end of the year as in the present case the fiction cannot be invoked. In this connec tion	 Counsel has again referred to the last limb of section 108 (1) of the Commonwealth Income tax Act	 according to which	 the payment to a shareholder by way of advance or loan is to be treated as a dividend paid by the Company on the last day of the year of income of the Company in which the payment is made. It is urged that the principle in the last limb of sub section (1) of section 108 of the Commonwealth Act should also be read into. the Indian statute	 It is maintained that the omission of such words from sections 2(6A) (e) and 12(lB) does not show that the intendment of the Indian Legislature was different. According to the Counsel what is implicit in section 108(1) of the Commonwealth Act	 is implicit in sections 2(6A)(e) and 12(1B) and the general scheme of the Act which re quires that the assessment is to be made on the basis of total income of the whole previous year. Such a view concludes Mr. Sharma	 would also be in consonance with reason and justice. We have given anxious thought to the persuasive argu ments of Mr. Sharma. His arguments	 if accepted	 will certainly soften the rigour of this extremely drastic provi sion and bring it more in conformity with logic and equity. But the language of sections 2(6A) (e) and 12(1B) is clear and unambiguous. There is no scope for importing into the statute words which are not there. Such importation would be	 not to construe	 but to amend the statute. Even if there be a casus omissus	 the defect can be remedied only by legislation and not by judicial interpretation. 709 To us	 there appears no justification to depart from the normal rule of construction according to which the intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered from the words used in the statute. It will be well to recall the words of Rowlatt J. in Cape Brandy Syndicase vs I.R.C.(1) at p. 71	 that "in a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is No. presumption as to a tax. nothing is to be read in	 nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used". Once it is shown that the case of the assessee comes within the letter of the law	 he must be taxed	 however great the hardship may appear to. the judicial mind to be. In our opinion	 the Indian Legislature has deliberately omitted to use in sections 2(6A)(e) and 12(lB) words analogous to those in the last limb of sub section (1) of section 108 of the Commonwealth Act. When Sections 2(6A) (e) and 12(lB) were inserted by the Finance Act	 1955	 Parliament must have been aware of the provision contained in section 108 of the Common wealth Act. In spite of such awareness	 Parliament has not thought it fit to borrow whole hog what is said in section 108 (1 ) of the Commonwealth Act. So far as the last limb of section 108(1) is concerned	 our Parliament imported only a very restricted version and incorporated the same as the 'fifth condition ' in sub section (lB) of section 12 to the effect	 that the "payment deemed as dividend shall be treat ed as a dividend received by him in the previous year relevant to the assessment year ending on the 31st day of March	 1956 if such loan or advance remains outstanding on the last day of such previous year". The word "such" pre fixed to the "previous year" shows that the application of this clause is confined to the assessment year ending on 31 3 1956. In the instant case we are not concerned with the assessment year ending on 31 3 56. This highlights the fact that the Legislature has deliberately not made the subsist ence of the loan or advance	 or its being outstanding on the last date of the previous year relevant to the assessment year	 a prerequisite for raising the statutory fiction. In other words	 even if the loan or advance ceases to be outstanding at the end of the previous year	 it can still be deemed as a 'dividend ' if the other four conditions factual ly exist	 to the extent of the accumulated profits possessed by the Company. At the commencement of this judgment we have noticed some general principles	 one of which is	 that the previous year is the unit of time on which the assessment is based (section 3). As the taxability of an income is related to its receipt or accrual in the previous year	 the moment a dividend is received whether it is actual dividend declared by the company or is a deemed dividend	 income taxable under the residuary head	 "income from other sources"	 arises. The charge being on accrual or receipt the statutory fiction created by section 2(6A)(e) and s.12(IB) would come into opera tion at the time of the payment by way of advance or loan	 provided the other conditions are satisfied. (1) (1921)1	K.B. 64 atp. 710 We do not propose to examine the soundness or otherwise of the illustrations given by Mr. Sharma since they are founded on assumed facts which do not exist in the present case. For the foregoing reasons we would answer the question posed in favour of the Revenue and dismiss this appeal with costs. P.B.R. Appeal dismissed.

Under section 2(6A)(e).of the Indian Income tax Act	 1922	 the term dividend includes any payment by a company not being a company in which the public are substantially interested within the meaning of section 23A of any sum (whether as representing a part of the assets of the company or otherwise) by way of advance or loan to a shareholder or any payment by any such company on behalf or for the individual benefit of a shareholder to the extent to which the company in either case possesses accumulated profits. According to section 12(1A) of the Act	 income from other sources includes dividends. Sub section (lB) of section 12 provides any payment by a company to a shareholder by way of advance or loan which would have been treated as dividend within the meaning of section 2(6A)(e) in any previous year relevant to any assess ment year prior to the assessment year ending on the 31st day of March	 1956 had that clause been in force in that year	 shall be treated as a dividend received by him in the previous year relevant to the assessment year ending on the 31st day of March	 1956	 if such loan or advance remained outstanding on the first day of such previous year. The provisions of section 2(6A)(e) and section 12(lB) had been borrowed and adopted with certain alterations from section 108(2) of the Commonwealth Income Tax Assessment Act of Australia the last limb of which provided that payment to a shareholder by way of advance or loan was to be treated as dividend paid by the company on the last day of the year of income of the company in which payment was made. The appellant assessee was a shareholder and Managing Director of a Private Ltd. Company. In the calendar year 1956 (assessment year 195758)	 the assessee withdrew in cash from the company a sum of Rs. 4.97 lakhs	 which was less than the accumulated profits of the company. Before the end of the year	 the assessee repaid the whole amount. Deduct ing a sum of Rs. 1.59 lakhs which was credited to the asses see 's account by way of dividend in the company 's books	 the Income tax Officer treated the balance of Rs. 2.72 lakhs as dividend income in the 	assessee 's hands and grossed up the amount under section 16(2). appeal	 the Accountant Member of the Appellate Tribunal held that any payment made as envisaged in section 2(6A)(e) became dividend and must be treated as the assessee 's income and no subsequent repayment could take it out of the mischief of the provision. The Judicial Member on the other band held that since total income of the asses see during the relevant previous year could be computed and assessed only at the end of that year any advance or loan taken during the interim periods of the previous year would have to. be ignored. On reference the President agreed with the Accountant Member. The High Court answered the reference in favour of the Revenue. 698 were taken and (ii) the last limb of section 108(1) of the Aus tralian Act should be read into the Indian Act because what was explicit in. section 108(1) of the Australian Act is implicit in section 2(6A)	(e) and section 12(lB) of the Indian Act. Dismissing the appeal	 HELD: The fiction created by section 2(6A)(e) read with section 12(lB) of the Act is attracted as soon as all the conditions necessary for its application exist in a case. [707 C] 1. In Navnit Lal C. Javeri vs K.K. Sen	 Appellate Assist ant Commissioner Income tax ; 	 this Court held that the combined effect of these two provisions is that three kinds of payments made to a shareholder of a company are treated as taxable dividend to the extent of the accumulated profits held by the company	 namely	 payments made to the shareholder by way of advance or loan	 pay ments made on his behalf and payments made for his individu al benefit. The five conditions to be satisfied are: (i) The company must be one in which the public are not substan tially interested within the meaning of section 23A; (ii) The borrower must be a shareholder at the date when the loan was advanced; (iii) The loan advanced can be deemed to be divi dend only to the extent of the accumulated profit on the date of the loan; (iv) The loan must not have been advanced by the company is the ordinary course of its business and (v) The loan must have remained outstanding at the com mencement of the shareholder 's previous year in relation to the assessment year 1955 56. [707 D G] In the instant case the company was a controlled company within the meaning of section 23A; the assessee was its share holder; the company possessed "accumulated profits" in excess of the amount paid to the assessee during the previ ous years; and the company 's business was not money lending. The last condition was not applicable because it was a transitory provision applicable to the assessment year 1955 56 only while the assessment year in this case was 1957 58. [708 A] 2. (a) The language of sections 2(6A)(e) and 12(lB) is clear and unambiguous. There is no scope for importing into the statute words which are not there. Such importation would be not to construe it but to amend the statute. Even if there be a casus omissus	 the defect can be remedied only by legislation and not by judicial interpretation. [708 H] (b) No justification to depart from the normal rule of construction according to which the intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered from the words used in the statute has been made out. (c) The Indian Legislature has deliberately omitted to use in sections 2(6A)(e) and 12(lB) words analogous to those in the last limb of section 108(1) of the Australian Act. When sections 2(6A)(e) and 12(lB) were inserted by Finance Act	 1955	 Parliament must have been aware of the provision contained in section 108 of the Australian Act. In spite of such aware ness	 Parliament has not thought it fit to borrow the whole hog what is said in section 108(1) no far as the last limb of that section is concerned. Our Parliament imported only a very restricted version	 and incorporated the same as the 5th condition in section 12(lB) to the effect	 that the payment deemed as dividend shall be treated as dividend received by him in the previous year relevant to the assessment year ending on the 31st March	 1956 if such loan or advance remained outstanding on the last day of such previous year The word "such" prefixed to the previous year shows that the application of this clause is confined to the assessment year ending on 31st March	 1956. [709 C D] In the instant case the assessment year did not end on 31st March	 1956 which showed that the Legislature has deliberately not made the subsistence of the loan or advance or its being outstanding on the last date of the previous year relevant to the assessment year	 a prerequisite for raising the statutory fiction. In other words	 even if the loan or advance ceased to	 be 699 outstanding at the end of the previous year	 it could still be deemed as dividend if the other four conditions factually existed to the extent of the accumulated profits possessed by the company. [709 E F] (d) Under section 3 which is the charging section	 the previ ous year is the unit of time on which the assessment is based. As the taxability of income is related to its re ceipt or accrual in the previous year	 the moment dividend is received whether	 actual or deemed	 income taxable under the residuary head	 "income from other sources"	 arises. The charge being on accrual or receipt	 the statutory fic tion created by sections 2(6A)(e) and section 12(lB) would come into operation at the time of payment by way of advance or loan provided the other conditions are satisfied. [709 G H]