Judgment Case ID: 1811

Judgment:
Appeal No. 587 	of 1963. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 30	 1960 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court	 in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 73 of 1960. K.N. Rajagopal Sastri and R. N. sachthev	 for the appellant. S.K. Kapoor	 section Murty and K. K. fain	 for the respondent	 811 April 17	 1964. The judgment of the Court was delivered by SIKRI	 J. The respondent	 Swadeshi Cotton & Flour Mills	 hereinafter referred to as the assessee	 is a limited company which owns and runs a textile mill at Indore. For	 the assessment year 1950 51 (accounting year calendar year 1949)	 which was its first year of assessment under the Indian Income tax Act	 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) it claimed that under section 10(2)(x) of the Act it was entitled to an allowance in respect of the sum of Rs. 1	08	325/ which it had paid as bonus for the year 1947 in the calendar year 1949	 as a result of the award of the Industrial Tribunal	 dated January 13	 1949. The claim of the assessee was not accepted by the Income Tax authorities. The Appellate Tribunal held that it was a liability relating to an earlier year and not the year 1949. However	 on an application by the assessee it stated a case and referred two questions. We are concerned only with one which reads thus: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee is entitled to claim a deduction of bonus of Rs. 1	08	325/ relating to the calendar year 1947 in the assessment year 1950 51? The High Court of Madhya Pradesh answered the question in the affirmative. The appellant	 having failed to get a certificate under section 66A(2) of the Act	 obtained special leave from this Court	 and that is how the appeal is before us. The facts and circumstances referred to in the question have been set out in the statement of the case. Unfortunately	 the facts are meagre	 but since the appellant is content to base his case on a few facts	 which will be referred to shortly	 it is not necessary to call for a further statement of the case. The facts	 in brief	 are as follows. The assessee paid as bonus to its employees the sum of Rs. 1	08	325/9/3 for the calendar year 1947 in terms of an award made on January 13	 1949 under the Industrial Disputes Act. This amount was debited by the assessee in its profit and loss account for the year 1948 and the corresponding credit was given to the bonus payable account. The books for 1948 had not been closed till the date of order of the Industrial Tribunal	 January 13	 1949. This bonus was in fact paid to the employees in the calendar year 1949	 the relevant assessment year being 1950 51. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had further found that upto 1946 when the order for payment of bonus used to be received before the company 's accounts for the year were finalised	 the amount of bonus used to be in fact 812 debited to the profit and loss account of the respective year. this finding is repeated by the Appellate Tribunal in its appellate order. On these facts the learned counsel for the appellant	 	Mr. Sastri	 contends that according to the mercantile system of accounting	 which is followed by the assessee	 and on which its profits have been computed for the accounting calendar year 1949	 the year to which the liability is properly attributable is the calendar year 1947 and not 1949. He says that it was a legal liability of the assessee which arose in 1947 and should have been estimated and put into the accounts for 1947. In the alternative he has invited us to reopen the accounts for the year 1947	 following the practice which	according to him	 obtains in England. Inour opinion	 the answer to the question must depend on theproper interpretation of section 10(2)(x)	 read with section 10(5)	 of theAct. These provisions read as follows: "section 10(2)(x) Any sum paid to an employee as bonus or commission for services rendered	 where such sum would not have been payable to him as profits or dividend if it had not been paid as bonus or commission; Provided that the amount of the bonus or commission is of a reasonable amount with reference to (a)the pay of the employee and the conditions of his service 	 (b)the profits of the business	 profession or vocation for the year in question; and (c)the general practice in similar businesses	 professions or vocations. " section 10(5) In sub section (2)	 "paid" means actually paid or incurred according to the method of accounting upon the basis of which the profits or gains are computed under this section;. " If we insert the definition of the word 'paid ' in sub cl. (x)	 it would read as follows: any sum actually paid or incurred according to the method 'of accounting upon the basis of which the profits or gains are computed under this section	 to an employee as bonus. " As the assessee 's profits and gains have been computed according to the mercantile system	 the question	 using for .he time being the terms of the clauses	 comes to this: "Has this sum of Rs. 1	08	325/ been incurred by the assessee according to the mercantile system in the calendar year 1947 or 1949?" 813 At first sight the sentence does not read well	 but the meaning of the word 'incur ' includes 'to become liable to ' Therefore	 the question boils down to: "In what year did the liability of this sum of Rs. 1	08	325/ arise	 according to the mercantile system ? " The mercantile system of accounting was explained in a judgment of this Court in Keshav Mills Ltd. vs Commis sioner of Income Tax	 Bombay(1) thus: "That system brings into credit what is duc	 immediately it becomes legally due and before it is actually received	 and it brings into debit expenditure the amount for which a legal liability has been incurred before it is actually disbursed. " These observations were quoted with approval in Calcutta 	Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax	 West Bengal(2). On the facts of this case	 when did the legal liability arise in respect of the bonus? This depends on the facts of the case and the nature of the bonus awarded in this case. This Court has examined the nature of profit bonus it is common round	 that the bonus with which we are concerned with was a profit bonus in various cases. It is explained in Muir Mills vs Suti Mills Mazdoor Union(3) that "there .are two conditions which have to be satisfied before a demand for bonus can be justified and they are (1) when 'wages fall short of the living standard	 and (2) the industry makes huge profits part of which are due to the contribution 'Which the workmen make in increasing production. The demand for bonus becomes an industrial claim when either or both these conditions are satisfied. " This matter was again considered in the case of Associated Cement Co. vs Their Workmen(4). This Court observed: "It is relevant to add that in dealing with the concept of bonus this Court ruled that bonus is neither a gratuitous payment made by the employer to his workmen nor can it be regarded as a deferred wage. According to this decision	 where wages fall short of the living standard and the industry makes profit part of which is due to the contribution of labour	 a claim for bonus can be legitimately made." ; (2) ; ; (4) 814 In 1961	 this Court was able to say that "the right to claim bonus which has been universally recognised by indus trial adjudication in cases of employment falling under the said Act has now attained the status of a legal right. Bonus can be claimed as a matter of right provided of course by 'the application of the Full Bench formula it is shown that for the relevant year the employer has sufficient available surplus in hand." (Vide Gajendragadkar	 J.	 as lie then was	 in Workmen vs Hercules Insurance Co.(1). The Indian Tea Association vs Workmen(2) this Court held that "the profit bonus can be awarded only by reference to a relevant year and a claim for such bonus has therefore to be made from year to year and has to be settled either amicably between the parties or if a reference is made	 it has to be determined by Industrial adjudication. A general claim for the introduction of profit bonus cannot be made or entertained in the form in which it has been done in the present proceedings. " It follows from the above decisions of this Court that: (a) workmen are entitled to make a claim to profit bonus if certain conditions are satisfied; (b) the workmen have to make a claim from year to year; (c) this claim has either to be settled amicably or by industrial adjudication; and (d) if there is a loss or if no claim is made	 no bonus will be permissible. In our opinion it is only when the claim to profit bonus	 if made	 is settled amicably or by industrial adjudication that a liability is incurred by the employer	 who follows the mercantile system of accounting	 within section 10(2)(x)	 read with section 10(5) of the Act. On the facts of this case	 it is clear that it was only in 1940 that the claim to profit bonus was settled by an award of the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore	 the only year the liabiiity can be properly attributed to is 1949	 and hence we are of the opinion that the High Court was right in answering the question in favour of the assessee. The second contention of the learned counsel does not appeal to us. We are of the opinion that this system of reopening accounts does not fit in with the scheme of the Indian Income Tax Act. We have already held in Commissioner of Income Tax	 Madras vs A. Gajapathy Naidu	 Madras(	) that as far as receipts are concerned	 there 	an be no reopening ; (2) [1962] Supp. (1) S.C.R. 557. (3)A.I.R. 815 of accounts. The same would be the position in respect of expenses. But even in En land accounts are not opened in every case. Halsbury gives various instances in footnote (m) at p. 148. Vol.20. Mr. Sastri has relied on various English cases but it is unnecessary to refer to them as Lord Radcliffe explains the position in England	 in Southern Railway of Peru Ltd. vs Owen(1) thus: "The courts have not found it impossible hitherto to make considerable adjustments in the actual fall of receipts or payments in order to arrive at a truer statement of the profits of successive years. After all	 that is why income and expenditure accounting is preferred to cash accounting for this purpose. As I understand the matter	 the principle that justified the attribution of something that was in fact	 received in one year to the profits of an earlier year	 as in such cases as Isaac Holden and Sons vs Inland Revenue Comrs. and Newcastle Breweries Ltd. vs Inland Revenue Comrs. was just this	 that the payment had been earned by services given in earlier year and	 therefore	 a true statement of profit required that the year which had borne the burden of the cost should have appropriated to it the benefit of the receipt. " The principle mentioned by Lord Radcliffe would not apply to a profit bonus. As stated above	 a profit bonus is strictly not wages	 at least not for the purpose of computing liability to income tax; it is not an expense	 in the ordinary sense of the term	 incurred for the purpose of earning profits. A fortiori profits have already been made. It is more like sharing of profits on the basis of a certain formula. One other point raised by Mr. Sastri remains. He urged that the word "for the year in question" in the proviso to sub section 10(2)(x) mean "for the year in which allowance is claimed. " We are unable to agree with him. The words 'for the year in question ' mean the year in respect which bonus is paid. In the result	 the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.

Summary:
The respondent company paid to its employees Rs. 1	08	325/ as bonus for the year 1947 in the calendar year 1949	 as a result of the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated January 13	 1949. This amount was debited by the company in its profit and loss account for the year 1948 and the corresponding credit was given to the bonus payable account. The books for 1948 were not closed till the date of the award of the Industrial Tribunal. For the relevant assessment year	 1950 51	 the company claimed that under section 10(2)(x) of the Indian Income tax Act	 1922	 it was entitled to an allowance in respect of the amount paid as bonus	 but the claim was rejected by the Income tax authorities on the ground that according to the mercantile system of accounting which was followed by the assessee the year to which the liability was properly attributable was the calendar year 1947 and not 1949. It was the case of the Income tax authorities that it was a legal liability of the assessee which arose in 1947 and should have been estimated and Put into the accounts for 1947	 and that	 if necessary	 the amounts for the year 1947 should be reopened. It was admitted that the bonus in the instant case was a profit bonus. Held:(i) It was only when the claim to profit bonus	 if made	 was settled amicably or by industrial adjudication that a liability was incurred by the employer	 who followed the mercantile system	 within section 10(2)(x)	 read with section 10(5)	 of the Indian Income tax Act	 1922; and as it was only in 1949 that the claim to profit bonus was settled by an award of the Industrial Tribunal	 the only year the liability could be properly attributed to was 1949. (ii) The system of reopening accounts was not applicable under thescheme of the Indian Income tax Act. (iii) The words "Year in question." in proviso (b) to s.10 (2)(x) of the Act meant "year in respect of which bonus was paid".