PETITIONER:
STATE BANK OF PATIALA, PATIALA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,PATIALA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/03/1996
BENCH:
N.P. SINGH, S.P. BHARUCHA
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT Paripoornan,J.
Leave granted in all the special leave petitions. 2. These are all connected cases. The matter arises under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The parties in all the appeals are the same. The appellant ln the appeals is "The State Bank of Patiala" and the respondent is the "Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala". The Civil Appeals filed from Special leave petitions (C) Nos. 2392-95 of 1993 are the main cases. They relate to four assessment years - 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1975-76. The appellant-assessee set apart amounts as "reserve" for "bad and doubtful debts" in all the years. A claim was laid that such sums qualified as reserves for the purpose of Rule 1 (xi) (b) of the First Schedule and Rule 1 (iii) Of the Second Schedule of the Act and such sums, representing reserves, should be included in the capital of the appellant for appropriate relief. The Income Tax Officer rejected the claim. In appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the plea of the assessee. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, by its detailed order dated 23.1.1980, upheld the plea of the assessee and held that the amounts set apart as reserves are entitled for appropriate relief under Rule 1 (xi)(b) of the First Schedule and Rule 1(iii) of the Second Schedule of the Act. On motion by the Revenue the Appellate Tribunal referred the following questions of law for the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which were numbered as Income Tax Reference Nos. 235 to 238 of 1980 :
"i) Whether, on the facts and in
the circumstances of the case,
the Appellate Tribunal was
right in law ln holding that
the amounts provided by the
assessee for bad and doubtful
debts in the balance sheets of
the relevant previous years
qualified as reserves for the
Purpose of clause xi (b) of
Rule 1 of the First Schedule
to the Companies (Profits)
Sur-tax Act, 1964 and
consequently allowing yearwise
deduction as under:
1971-72 Rs. 7,00,000/-
1972-73 Rs. 13,78,000/-
1973-74 Rs. 22,11,000/-
1975-76 Rs. 15,98,000/-
ii) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the
Appellate Tribanal was right
in law in holding that the
amounts of Rs.15,53,576/-,
Rs.27,21,641/-, Rs.29,91,641/-
and Rs.47,16,641, provided for
bad and doubtful debts as at
the beginning of the relevant
accounting year respectively
for the assessment years 1971-
72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1975-
76 qualified as a reserve for
inclusion in the capital of
the assessee under Second
Schedule ot the companies
{Profits) sur-tax, Act,1964."
(emphasis supplied) By a detailed judgment dated 27.7.1992 the High Court took the view that on the facts and circumstances of the present case, sums of money set apart by the assessee as reserves are really "provisions" and not "reserves" and so, such sums are not entitied to the relief granted by the Appellate Tribunal. It is, thereafter the assessee moved this Court by special leave petition Nos. 2392-95 of 1993 and obtained special leave in the four cases. The judgment of the High Court is reported as Commissioner of Income Tax vs. State Bank of Patiala (203 ITR 150). 3. Special leave petitions (C) Nos. 27543-5Q of 1995 relate to the same assessee and eight assessment years are involved therein - 1979-80 to 1987-88 escept 1985-86. For those years, identical claim put forward by the appellantassessee was rejected by the Income Tax Officer. In appeal, CIT allowed the claims. In the meanwhile, the decision of the High Court for the previous four years, i.e., 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1975-76 had been rendered and so the Tribunal, following the decision of the High Court, held against the assessee. The plea of the assessee to refer the matter either to the appropriate High Court or to this Court was disallowed. The assessee has filed special leave petitions in this Court directly against the aforesaid order of the Appellate Tribunal. 4. Special leave petition (C) No. 27551 of 1995, relating to the same assessee and involving consideration of the same question, relates to the assessment year 1985-86. The Appellate Tribunal finally decided against the assessee following the earlier decision of the High Court reported in 203 ITR 150. The attempt to get the matter referred to the High Court was unsuccassful and so the assessee filed the special leave petition in this Court against tne order of the Appelate Tribunal. 5. All the 13 appeals involve conslderation of the same question between the same parties. So, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 6. We heard counsel for the appellant-assessee, Mr. A. Subba Rao, and counsel for the respondentRevenue, Mr. B.S. Ahuja. 7. The statutory provisions, relevant for our purpose, are mentioned hereinbelow:
The Companies (Profi_s) Surtax Act
1964 {Act 7 of 1464)
"2(5) "chargeable profits" means
the total income of an
assessee computed under the
Income-tax Act, 1961 for any
previous year or years, as the
case may be, and adjusted in
accordance with the provisions
of the First Schedule;
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
(8) "Statutory deduction" means an
amount equal to fifteen per
cent of the capital of the
company as computed in
accordance with the provisions
of the Second Schedule, or an
amount of two hundred thousand
rupees, which ever is greater:
Provided that where the
previous year is longer or shorter
than a period of twelve months, the
aforesaid amount of fifteen per
cent or, as the case may be, of two
hundred thousand rupees shall
beincreased or decreased
proportionately:
Provided further that where a
company has different previous
years in respect of its income,
profits and gains, the aforesaid
increase or decrease, as the case
may be, shall be calculated with
reference to the length of the
previous year of the longest
duration; and
(9) all other words and expressions
used herein but not defined
and defined in the Income-tax
Act shall have the meanings
respectively assigned to them
in that Act."
"4. Charge of tax. - Subject to the
provisions contained in this Act,
there shall be charged on every
company for every assessment year
commencing on and from the first
day cf April, 1964 [but before the
first day of April, 1988], a tax
(in this Act referred to as the
surtax) in respect of so much of
its chargeable profits of the
Previous year or previous years, as
the case may be, as exceed the
statutory deduction, at the rate or
rates specified in the Third
Schedule.˜’
"THE FIRST SCHEDULE"
( See Section 2(5) )
RULES FOR COMPUTING THE CHARGEABLE
PROFITS
In computing the chargeable
profits of a previous year, the
total income computed for that year
under the Income Tax Act shall be
adjusted as follows:
1. Income, profits and gains and
other sums falling within the
following clauses shall be excluded
from such total income, namely:
xxxx xxxx xxxx
(xi) in the case of a banking
company
(a) any sum which during the
previous year is transferred
by it to a reserve fund un.der
subsection (1) of section 17
of the Banking Companies Act,
1949 or is deposited by it
with the Reserve Bank of India
under sub-clause (ii) of
clause (b) of sub-section (2)
of section 11 of that Act, not
exceeding the amount required
under the aforesaid provisions
to be so transferred or
deposited, as the case may be,
or
(b) any sum transferred by it
during the previous year to
any reserves in India
including reserves not shown
as such in its published
balance sheet in so far as the
sums transferred to such
reserves are attributable to
income chargeable to tax under
the Income-tax Act and have
not been allowed as a
deduction in computing its
total income under that Act
and in so far as the aggregate
of such sums does not exceed
the highest of the aggregate
of such sums, if any, so
transferred during any one of
the three years prior to the
previous year, whichever is
higher;
xxx xxx xxx
[Explanation - Notwithstanding
anything contained in any clause of
this rule, the amount of any income
or profits and gains which is
required to be excluded from the
total income under that clause
shall be only the amount of such
income or profits and gains as
computed in accordance with the
provisions of the Income-tax Act
(except Chapter VIA thereof), and
in a case where any deduction is
required to be allowed in respect
of any such income or profits and
gains under the said Chapter VIA,
the amount of such lncome or
profits and gains computed as
aforesaidas reduced by the amount
oi such deduction.]"
"THE SECOND SCHEDULE
(See Section 2(8))
RULES FOR COMPUTING THE CAPITAL OF A
COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSES OF SURTAX
1. Subject to the other
provisions contained in this
Schedule, the capital of a company
shaIl be the aggregate of the
amounts, as on the first day of the
previous year relevant to the
assessment year of
(i) ............
(ii) ............
(iii) its other reserves as reduced
by the amounts credited to such
reserves as have been allowed as a
deduction in computing the income
of the company for the purposes of
the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or
the Income-tax Act, 1961;
(emphasis supplied) 8. The facts of these cases are not in dispute. As stated by the High Court the sole point, which falls for consideration, is whether the amounts set apart by the assessee during each assessment year for "bad and doubtful debts" in the balance sheets of the relevant period constitute "reserve" as contemplated by Rule 1 (xi) (b) of the First Schedule and Rule 1 (iii) of the Second Schedule to the Act? The Act has levied a charge on every company for every assessment year - a tax called sur-tax - in respect of so much of its chargeable profits of the previous years as exceed the Statutory deduction at the rates specified in the Third Schedule. In determining the chargeable profits Rule 1 ( X1 ) ( b) of the First Schedule mandates that in the case cf a banking company any sum transferred by it during the previous year to any reserves in India including the reserxes not shown as such in its published balance sheets in so far as the sums transferred to such reserves are attributable to income chargeable to tax under the Income tax Act and have not been allowed as a deduction in computing its total income under the Act, shall be excluded. The tax is levied, on the chargeable profits, which excluded the statutory deduction at the rates specified in the Third Schedule. As per section 2(8) of the Act statutory deduction is defined to mean an amount equal to ten per cent of the capital Of the company as computed in accordarce with the provisions of the Second Schedule. Rule 1 of the Second Schedule mandates that the capital of the company shall be the aggregate of the amounts taking within its told its other reserves as specified in Rule 1(iii) of the Second Schedule. 9. If the sums set apart in the balance sheets are only "provisions" the assessee will not be entitled to the relief claimed by it. If, on the other hand, the sums set apart are "reserves" within the meaning of the Act assessee will be entitled to appropriate relief. After referring to the relevant decisions, dealing with the reserves and provisions, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal posed the question thus:
" in order to constitute a reserve
a particular amount set aside out
of the profits and other surpluses,
not designed to meet a liability,
contingency, commitment or
diminution in the value of assets
known to exist at the date of the
balance sheets, is a reserve. In
other words, if the amount set
apart is designed to meet a
liability, contingency, commitment
or results in diminution in value
of assets, it would be a provision
and not a reseQrve. We have to
apply this test here " In paragraphs 20 to 22 of its order, the Appellate Tribunal entered the following findings:
"We find that the assessee has not
written off or adjust(ed) these
amounts provided as reserves and
doubtful debts in its profit and
loss account that these amounts
have not been allowed as a
deduction computing tne income of
the company for purposes of Income-
tax Act, that these amounts have
remained employed in the business
of the ass;essee by way of capital
and the assessee has in fact
treated these amounts as reserves
and not as provisions designed to
meet a liability, contingency,
commitment, or diminution in the
value of assets known to exist at
date of relevant balance sheets.
We, therefore, hold that these are
amounts which constitute reserve
for clause liii) of rule 1 of the
Second Schedule to the Companies
(Profits) Surtax Act, 1964."
"In fact it has been clarified by
the learned Counsel for the
assessee, and it has not been
controverted by the revenue, that
in none of the years under appeal
the assessee appropriated any
amounts against bad and doubtful
debts. The reserves stood as they
were in each year and therefore,
would constitute reserve within the
meaning of rule 1(xi)(b) of the
Second Schedule to the Companies
(Profits) Sur-tax Act, 1964."
(emphasis supplied) In paragraph 24 of its order the Tribunal concluded thus:
"We also find that no amount
on account of bad debts was
factually written off or adjusted
by the assessee against these
agounts claimed as reserves, that
in fact the assessee also did not
make a claim for any deduction for
any of the assessment years under
consideration on account of bad
debts, that no such claim was
either made or allowed by the
Income-tax Officer, that the
assessee made contra entries in the
unpublished balance sheets only and
no such entries were passed in
books and that the published
balance-sheets did not contain any
contra entries. The _amounts were
in fact treated as reserves. These
are entitled to be considered as
reserves under Rule l(xi)(b) of the
First Schedule to the Act. We,
therefore, direct that these be so
treated Both the issues arc decided
in all the assessment years, in
favour of the assessee."
(emphasis suppliad) 10. The High Court, in answering the questions referred to it, by judgment dated 27.7.1992, adverted to the landmark decisions of this Court in Metal Box_Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Their workmen (73 ITR 53), Vazir Sultan Tobaco Co. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, A.P. (132 ITR 559), Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kanpur vs. Elgin Mills Ltd. (161 ITR 733) and C.I.T. Vs. Saran Engineering Co. Ltd. (161 ITR 741), and stated thus:-
"Thus, where a fund has been
created to meet a liability which
has actually arisen and jis known
on the date of the preparation of
the balance-sheet, it would
obviously be provision. Again fund
created or a sum of money set apart
to met any liability which the
assessee can reasonably and
lagitimatly anticipate on the date
of preparation of the balance sheet
though the quantum of that
liability is not yet determined,
has also been equated with the
present known liability and the
fund to meet such liability cannot
be treated as a reserve. If, on the
other hand, a fund is created to
meet some future unknown liability
which has not lyet arisen and which
could not legitimately and
reasonably be anticipated by the
assessee at the time of the
preparation of the accounts, the
fund would be treated as a
’reserve’. Whether in respect of
bad and doubtful debts, an account
could be treated as reserve or a
provision would depand upon the
facts and circumstances of each
case. Again, whether a particular
liability could reasonably and
legitimately be anticipated by a
assessee on the date of the balance
sheet would be a question of fact
to be determined in the
circustances of each case and the
nature of the business carried on
by the assessee would be one
relevant factor.
Applying these tests to the
case in hand, one cannot loose
sight of the fact that the assessee
before us is a banking company
whose primary business, is to lend
money. In the very nature of
things, it would be reasonable and
legitimate for such an assessee to
assume that in the course of its
business, it is bound to have bad
and doubtful debts for which it may
in anticipation make a provision in
the balance sheet by having a
separate fund or an account to meet
such anticipated liability although
its quantum would determined at
some later date. Since such
anticiapted liability has been
equated with known and existing
liability, the fund is to be
considered a ’provision’ and not a
’reserve’."
(emphasis supplied) The High Court concluded, thus:-
"For the reasons recorded
above, we are of the view that on
the facts and circumstances of the
present case, the sums of money set
apart by the assessee herein for
meeting its anticipated liability
was a ’provision’ and the Tribunal
erred in law in holding it to be a
’reserve’. In the result, both the
questions referred to us are
answered in the negative i.e.
against the assessee and in favour
of the Revenue."
(emphasis supplied) 11. We are of the view that the learned judges of the High Court misunderstood and misapplied the ratio laid down in the decisions of this Court, referred by it. In Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. vs. Their workmen (73 ITR 53) at pp. 67-68 this Court laid down the law thus:-
"The next question is whether
the amount so provided is a
provision or a reserve. The
distinction between a provision and
a reserve is in commercial
accountancy fairly well known.
Provisions made against anticipated
losses and contingencies are
charges against profits and,
therefore, to be taken into account
against gross receipts in the P & L
account and the balance-sheet. On
the other hand, reserves are
appropriations of profits, the
assets by which they are
represented being retained to form
part of the capital employed ln the
business. Provisions are usually
shown in the balance-sheet by way
of deductions from the assets in
respect of which they are made
whereas general reserves and
reserve funds are shown as part of
the proprietor’s interest (see
Spicer and Pegler’s Book-keeping
and Accounts, 15th edition, page
42). An amount set aside out of
profits and other surpluses, not
designed to meet a liability,
continqency, commitment or
diminution in the value of assets
is a reserve but an amount set
aside out of profits and other
surpluses to provide for any known
liability of which the amount
cannot be determined with
substantial accuracy is a provision
(see William Pickles Accountancy,
second edition, p.l92; Part III,
clause 7, Schedule VI to the
Companies Act, 1956, which defines
provision and reserve)."
(emphasis supplied) In Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. vs. Comissioner of Income- Tax, A.P. (supra), after referring to the above observations in Metal Box Company’s case (supra), the Court held at p. 569, thus:-
"In other words the broad
distinction between the two is that
whereas a provision is a charge
against the profits to be taken
into account against gross receipts
in the P. & L. account, a reserve
is an appropriation of profits, the
asset or assets by which it is
represented being retained to form
part of the capital employed in the
business."
(emphasis supplied) After referring to the relevant provisions of Companies Act, 1956 regarding the form of balance-sheet wherein the words "reserve and surplus" and "current liabilities and provisions" etc. are dealt with, the Court observed, thus:-
"On a plain reading of cl.
7(1)(a) and (b) and cl. 7(2) above
it will appear clear that though
the term "provision" is defined
positively by specifying what it
means the definition of "reserve"
is negative in form and not
exhaustive in the sense that it
only specifies certain amounts
which are not to be included in the
term "reserve". In other words the
effect of reading the two
definitions together is that if any
retention or appropriation of a sum
falls within the definition of
"provision" it can never be a
reserve but it does not follow that
if the retention or appropriation
is not a provision it is
automatically a reserve and the
question will have to be decided
having regard to the true nature
and character of the sum so
retained or appropriated depending
on several factors including the
lntent on with which and the
purpose for which such retention or
appropriation has been made because
the substance of the matter is to
be regarded and in this context the
Primary dictionary meaning of the
term "reserve" may have to be
availed of. But it is clear beyond
doubt that if any retention or
appropriation of a sum is not a
provision, that is to say, if it is
not designated to meet
depreciation, renewals or
diminution in value of assets or
any known liability the same is not
necessarily a reserve. We are
emphasising this aspect of the
matter because during the hearing
almost all counsel for the
assessees strenuously contended
before us that once it was shown or
became clear that the retention or
appropriation of a sum out of
profits and surpluses was for an
unknown liability or for a
liability which did not exist on
the relevant date it must be
regarded as a reserve. The fallacy
underlying the contention becomes
apparent if the negative and non-
exhaustive aspects of the
definition of reserve are borne in
mind. Having regard to the type of
definitions of the two concepts
which are to be found in cl. 7 of
Pt. III she proper approach in ounr
view would be first to ascertain
whether the particular retention or
appropriatioin of a sum fells
within the expression "provision"
and if it does then clearly the
concerned sum will have to be
excluded from the computation of
capital, but in case the retention
or appropriation of the sum is not
a provision as define the question
will have to be decided by
reference to the true nature and
character of the sum so retained or
appropriated having regard to
several factors as mentioned above
and if the concerned sum is in fact
a reserve then it will be taken
into account for the computation of
capital."
(emphasis supplied) In Commissioner of Income-Tax._Kanpur vs. Elgin Mills Ltd. (supra) the Court stated the guidelines to be borne in mind to distinguish between ’provision’ and ’reserves’ in the following words:-
"The distinction between
"provision" and "reserve" must be
found out bearing in mind the main
features of the reserve. These are:
(1) it must be an appropriation of
profits, current or accumulated,
and a charge against the profits
for the year. (2) The conduct of
the parties must bear out that
intention. (3) It must not be to
set apart to meet any known
liability - a liability known to
exist on the date of the balance-
sheet. Reference in thsi connection
may be made to the observations of
this Court in Vazir Sultan’s case
[1981] 132 ITR 559 at pages 569-
570." Again in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Saran Engineering Co. Ltd. (supra), dealing with the question as to whether bad and doubtful debts will constitute a ’provision’ or ’reserve’, the Court stated, thus:-
"Bad and Dountful Debts
Reserve was created in 1956 through
the Profit and Loss Appropriation
account. The amount involved was
Rs. 50,00,000. It was submitted on
behalf of the assessee by Shri
Salve that this was created by
transfer from the appropriation
account and not as a charge against
profit. Furthermore, a separate
provision was made for bad and
doubtful debts which provision was
reduced from the value of the
assets. It was ;not the Revenue’s
case that the provision for bad and
doubtful debts provided was less
that the amoun reasonably necessary
to be provided in respect of bad
and doubtful debts, then it
constituted a "reserve". It is not
correct to state that by the very
nomenclature, this was not a
reserve. The true nature of the
transaction has to be examined."
(emphasis supplied)
And again at p. 748 the Court concluded, thus:-
"It may be mentioned that where the
liability has actually or is
anticipated leqitimately by the
assessee though the quantum of the
liability has not been determined,
a fund to meet such present
liability cannot be treated as
"reserves". A fund, however,
created for payment of a liability
which had not alreads arisen or
fallen due but is only a provision
with regard to the sum that might
become liable to be paid is "other
reserves" within the meaning of
rule 1 of the Second Schedule and
should be taken into account in
computing the capital of the
company for the purpose of the
Companies (Profits) Surtax Act,
1964."
(emphasis supplied) 12. A fair reading of the above decisions would go to show that if the transfer of amount is made ad hoc, when there is no known or anticipated liability, such fund will only be treated as ’reserve’. In this case, substantial amounts were set apart as reserves No amount of bad debt was actually written off or adjusted against the amount claimed as reserves. No claim for any deduction by way of bad debts were made during the relevant assessment years. The assessee never appropriated any amount against any bad and doubtful debts. The amounts throughout remained in the account of the assessee by way of capital and the assessee treated the said amounts as "reserves" and not as "provisions" designed to meet liability, contingency, commitment or diminution in the value of assets known to exist at the relevant dates of balance sheets. These facts have been found by the Tribunal. On the facts, the amount set apart as reserves cannot be said to be so earmarked, when ans liability has actually arisen or was anticipated by the assessee. It cannot be said either, that the amounts set apart out of the profits were designed to meet any known liability, that exiisted at the date of the balance-sheet. Tested in the light of the decisions of this Court, referred to hereinabove, it appears to us, that the amounts set apart towards bad and doubtful debts in these cases are "reserves" qualifying for appropriate relief under rule l(xi)(b) of the First Schedule and rule 1(iii) of the Second Schedule of the Act. 13. We are afraid that the High Court has grossly misunderstood the following observations of this Court contained in Commisioner of Income-Tax vs. Saran Engineering Co. Ltd. (161 ITR 741) at p. 748.
"It may be mentioned that where the
liability has actually arisen or is
anticipated leigitimately by the
assessee though the quantum of the
liability has not been dstermined,
a fund to meet such present
liability cannot be treated as
"reserves"."
(emphasis supplied) 14. The High Court has taken the view that the "fund created or a sum of money set apart to meet any liability which the assessee "can reasonably and legitimately anticipate " on the date of preparation of the balance sheet, is the same, as in a case "where the liability has actually arisen", (a present known liability) and the fund to meet such liability cannot be treated as reserve". In the view of the High Court, since the assessee is a banking company, it would be "reasonable and leqitimate to assume" that in the course of its business, "it is bound to have" bad and doubtful debts for which "it may", in anticipation, make a provision in the balance sheet by having a separate fund or an account to meet such anticipated liability We are afraid that the aforesaid assumption is totaily unjustified and proceeds on mere surmises and conjectures. This is not a case, when at the time fund is earmarked, there is a known liability one which has either arisen or anticipated legitimately, by the assessee - and the fund to meet such eventuality cannot be treated as "reserves". The observations of this Court that the liability should be one "which has actually arisen or is anticipated leqitimately by the assessee", cannot be extended to hold, that in the case of an assessee carrying on banking business, it is "bound" or "can reasonably anticipate" on the date of the preparation of balance sheet "bad and doubtful debts", for which "it ought", in anticipation, make a provision and such provision for anticipated liability should be equafied with known and existing liability and should be construed as a provision. The question in such cases, is whether the liability was "known" or "anticipated" on the date when the balance sheet was prepared. The question is not whether the assessee "can anticipate" or "reasonably anticipate" on the date when the balance sheet was prepared about "the bad and doubtful debts". The High Court was in error in surmising that the assessee being a banking company is bound to have bad and doubtful debts. It need not necessarily be so. It is not bound to anticipate on the date of preparation of balance sheet that all or any of its debts "are bound to be bad and doubtful". It all depends upon facts and circumstances. We are of the view that the High Court misunderstood the scope of the observations in Saran Engineering Co.’s case (supra) and surmised that the observations quoted at page 748 wili even cover cases, where the liability was not factually anticipated on the date of the preparation of the balance sheet, but also will apply to cases, where the company "ought and can" anticipate on the date of preparation of the balance sheet. 14. We set aside the judgment of the High Court, rendered in ITR No. 235-238 of 1990 dated 27.7.1992 and restore the order passed by the Appellate Txibunal dated 23.1.1980. We answer the questions, referred to the High Court, in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 15. It was agreed that the decision taken in special leave petitions Nos. 2392-95/93 for the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1975-76 will cover the other cases as well. Therefore, we hold that the assessee is entitled to the appropriate relief for the years 1979-80 to 1987-88 as well, which are covered by the other two sets of appeals. 16. The appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.