COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS PRASAD FILM LABORATORIES (P.) LTD.
1999 PTD 325
[225I T R 348]
[Andhra Pradesh High Court (India)]
Before M. N. Rao and T. N. C. Rangarajan, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
Versus
PRASAD FILM LABORATORIES (P.) LTD.
R.C. No.68 of 1995 and I.T.C. No.50 of 1996, decided on 14/11/1996.
(a) Income-tax---
----Investment allowance ---Cinematograph films---Making positive prints out of negative---Is not manufacture and production of cinematograph film -- Cinematograph film is raw material for process---Process is manufacture-- Plant and machinery entitled to investment allowance---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. S.32-A; Sched. XI, Item 9.
(b) Income-tax---
----Investment allowance---Rectification of mistake ---Assessee failing to claim investment allowance in assessment---Claim can be made in rectification application---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.32-A & 154.
The assessee was a company engaged in the business of printing and processing of cinematograph films. The actual process carried out by the assessee was to develop exposed cinematograph film and make positive prints which were ready for exhibition. In the proceedings for the assessment year 1984-85 corresponding to the previous year ended June 30, 1983, the assessee did not claim any investment allowance. The assessment was declared "not assessable" and completed on a net loss. The assessee, thereafter, filed an application for rectification of the assessment stating that by inadvertence it had omitted to claim investment allowance on electrical installations, voltage stabilisers, and air-conditioning plant used in the business of developing and processing the cinematograph films. The claim was rejected. For the assessment years 1986-87 and 1988-89, the assessee made claims for grant of investment allowance in respect of the same machinery. The Income-tax Officer, while making the assessment for those assessment years, rejected the claim on the ground that the said items did not form part of plant and machinery and the business activity fell within Item No.9 of the Eleventh Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, being an item not entitled to investment allowance. This was confirmed on appeal. The Tribunal, on further appeal, allowed the claims. On a reference at the instance of the Revenue:
Held, (i) that the production of a negative by exposing the raw film and recording the pictures and sound track thereon would amount to production of a cinematograph film. That process should also include developing the exposed film to have the negative or the master film. But when positive prints are made from the master negative, the cinematograph film which was already produced is the raw material, and therefore, it cannot be said that there is a production of cinematograph film inasmuch as such cinematograph film was already produced with reference to the negative, and making of the positive film is only a process of duplication. The process of making positive prints from the negative so made is an independent activity, which cannot be called production of a cinematograph film, but rather falls in the category of a duplication process. Therefore, since the main business of the assessee was to make the positive prints from negative prints, the fact that occasionally exposed films were also developed would not disqualify the assessee from claiming the allowance.
(ii) That by the process carried out by the assessee, the raw film without images and sound were converted into films with images and sounds, which was a new and distinct commodity well-known in the trade as positive prints quite different from raw film. Therefore, the process of obtaining positive prints would be manufacture.
(iii) That the assessee was entitled to make a claim for investment allowance for the assessment year 1984-85 by way of a rectification application after the assessment was closed as "NA".
CIT v. Manmohan Das (1966) 59 ITR 699 (SC); CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. (1993) 204 ITR 412 (SC); CIT v. Prasad Productions (Pvt.) Ltd. (1989) 179 ITR 147 (Mad.) and Chokshi Metal Refinery v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 63 (Guj.) ref.
S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner.
C. Kodanda Ram for the Assessee.
JUDGMENT
T.N.C. RANGARAJAN, J.---The admitted facts stated in this case areas follows:
The assessee is a company engaged in the business of printing and processing of cinematographic films. The Appellate Tribunal has found that the actual process carried out by the company was to develop exposed cinematographic film and make positive prints, which are ready for exhibition. In the proceedings for the assessment year1984-85 corresponding to the previous year ended on June 30, 1983, the assessee did not claim any investment allowance. The assessment was declared as "N.A." (not assessable determining the net loss at Rs.94,175 and carrying forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.4,65,918. The assessee thereafter, filed an application for rectifying the assessment stating that by inadvertence it had omitted to claim investment allowance on electrical installations, voltage stabilisers, and air-conditioning plant used in the said business of developing and processing the cinematographic film and it should be allowed. This claim was rejected on the ground that there was no mistake apparent from the record. Simultaneously, for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1988-89, the assessee made claims for grant of investment allowance in respect of the same machinery. The Income-tax Officer, while making the assessment for those assessment years, rejected the claim on the ground that the said items do not form part of plant and machinery and the business activity falls within item No.9 of the Eleventh Schedule being an item not entitled to investment allowance. This decision was confirmed on appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax who rejected all the appeals and for the assessment year 1984-85 not only on this ground but also on the ground that there was no mistake apparent from the record.
When all the three assessments came up on further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, the Appellate Tribunal held that what was ineligible is only the manufacture of cinematographic film, which according to the Tribunal, could not refer to the processing of exposed cinematographic film The Tribunal also held such processing amounted to manufacture because the assessee produced an article which was different from the raw material. With reference to the assessment year 1984-85, the Appellate Tribunal also found that there being no profits in that year the assessee could always claim :he deduction in the subsequent year and the matter of computing the admissible investment allowance was only an omission which could be rectified.
The Revenue raised the following questions:
Assessment year 1986-87:
"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in relying on the decision of the Income-tax Appellate, Madras, in the case of Prasad Productions (Pvt.) Ltd. in I.T.As. Nos.1831 and 1832/Mds. of 1984, dated May 29, 1985, wherein it was held that a feature film was different from a cinematograph film, particularly when the feature film is covered under the Cinematograph Act?
(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in allowing investment allowance to the assessee particularly when it was covered by items Nos. 9 and 10 of the Eleventh Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961?
(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in concluding the processing of colour films used in cinema through hypo solution which absorbs the silver content of the film and drying, etc., amounts to manufacture and the ratio of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of N.C. Buddharaja & Co. (1993) 204 ITR 412, is not applicable to the facts of the case?
(4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in directing allowance of investment allowance on voltage stabiliser, electrical equipment, projector and air-conditioner treating them as plant and machinery in the assessee's business of processing of colour films, even though cinematograph films and projectors are included under item No.9 of the Eleventh Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961?"
(5) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in concluding that processing of colour films used in cinema through Hypo solution which absorbs the silver content of the film and drying, etc., amounts to manufacture and the ratio of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of N.C. Buddharaja & Co. (1993) 214 ITR 412, is not applicable to the facts of the case?
(6) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in directing allowance of investment allowance on voltage stabiliser, electrical equipment projector and air-conditioner treating them as plant and machinery in the assessee's business of processing of colour films, even though cinematograph films and projectors are included under item No.9 of the Eleventh Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961?"
The Appellate Tribunal, however, referred only the following questions
For all the three years:
"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in relying on the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, in the case of Prasad Productions (Pvt.) Ltd. in I.T.As. Nos.1831 and 1832/Mds. of 1984, dated May 29, 1985, wherein it was held that a feature film was different from a cinematograph film, particularly when the feature film is covered under the Cinematograph Act?
(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in directing allowance of investment allowance on voltage stabiliser, electrical equipment, projector and air-conditioner treating them as plant and machinery in the assessee's business of processing of colour films, even though cinematograph films and projectors are included under item No.9 of the eleventh Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961?"
Only for the assessment year 1984-85:
"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that there was a mistake apparent from record in the order of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 1984-85, and thus, allowing investment allowance?"
Only for the assessment Year 1988-89:
"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in upholding the allowance of unabsorbed investment allowance pertaining to the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 brought forward and claimed by the assessee during the assessment year 1988-89?"
The Revenue has therefore filed I.T.C. No.50 of 1996 for a direction to refer the questions which have not been referred by the Appellate Tribunal. We find that in reference applications questions are generally not properly framed by the Revenue and while referring the matter also the issues are not properly focussed by reframing the questions. When the questions raised are repetitious, and similar to the grounds of appeal the Appellate Tribunal refers to one or two of them and leaves off the rest as in the present case, while the Revenue insists on the other questions being also referred. In this exercise, both sides as well as the Appellate Tribunal overlook the need to focus the issues. A perusal of the facts narrated above will indicate that only two issues actually arise in the case, namely; whether item No.9 of Schedule XI of the Income-tax Act is a bar to claim of the assessee for investment allowance, and whether for the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee could make a claim by way of rectification application.
In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Appellate Tribunal ought to have reframed the questions and referred the case. We, therefore, reframe the questions in the following manner before we answer the issues.
"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to investment allowance under section 32-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of electrical installations, air conditioning plant and voltage stabiliser installed in its laboratory on the ground that the assessee was not engaged in the manufacture of cinematograph films as specified in item No. 9 of the Eleventh Schedule to the Act?
(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to make a claim for investment allowance for the assessment year 1984-85 by way of rectification application after the assessment was closed as N.A.?"
With reference to the first question, it was argued by learned standing counsel that the word cinematograph film', must be understood with reference to the legislation on that subject and in that approach it would be found that the end product of the assessee's business was cinematograph film and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the investment allowance. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the words cinematograph film should, be given the meaning in common parlance as 'raw film' which is required to be manufactured and it could not refer to certain processes taking place with the raw film itself as the input. It was further submitted that even if cinematograph film is understood as the motion picture, manufacture of that motion picture ended with exposing the raw film and the processing that take place after that particularly with reference to the production of positive prints from the negative will be outside the scope of that expression.
Section 32-A provides for the grant of investment allowance as a deduction of an amount equal to 25 percent of actual cost of the new machinery or plant in respect of the previous year in which the machinery or plant was acquired or first put to use. Subsection (2)(b)(iii) provides that the said machinery or plant shall be that installed in any industrial undertaking for the purposes of business of construction, manufacture or production of any article or thing, not being an article or thing specified in the list in the Eleventh Schedule. At the relevant time item No.9 of the Eleventh Schedule was 'cinematograph films and projectors'. Subsection (3) of section 32-A provides for carrying forward unabsorbed investment allowance where the income of the previous year is either nil or less than the admissible investment allowance.
A reading of these provisions indicate that an assessee will not be entitled to investment allowance if it is engaged in the business of manufacture or production of cinematograph film.
It is well established that the words used in the statute dealing with the matters relating to the general public are presumed to have been used in their popular sense, that is, according to the common understanding. But this doctrine is not applicable to the technical words, which are used, only in their technical sense. In any case, the meaning of those words unless there is anything contrary in the context can be ascertained from the legislation relating to that subject itself. In the present case, we find that the meaning of cinematograph film remains the same both in the popular sense as well as in the technical sense. Chambers' Twentieth Century Dictionary defines cinematograph as an apparatus for projecting a series of instantaneous photographs so as to give a moving representation of a scene, with or without reproduction of sound. A film is defined as a sheet or ribbon of celluloid or the like prepared with such a coating for ordinary photographs or for instantaneous photographs for projection by cinematograph: a motion picture, or connected series of motion pictures setting forth a story.
Entry 60 in List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India is "sanctioning of cinematograph films for exhibition". Under this entry, the having produced it. The production and exhibition of a feature film constitute two distinct and separate stages and while the former would take in all activities which culminate in the production of a feature films, the latter contemplates a stage subsequent to the completion of the production of the film, viz., exhibition of the film produced."
We are of the opinion that the process of making positive prints from the negative so made is an independent activity which cannot be called production of a cinematograph film but rather falls in the category of a duplication process. Though the raw film may again be used for making the prints, the base material is the negative and not the scene and sounds recorded with the equipment such as those referred to in the depreciation table.
Even though the development of an exposed film to produce a negative could be an ultimate step in the production of a cinematograph film, the Appellate Tribunal has taken the view that the process could not be regarded as part of the production of the cinematograph film because as far as the assessee, who is undertaking that process is concerned, the raw material is the exposed film and not a raw film. This view is somewhat debatable because, as we have observed earlier, the production of the cinematograph film would be complete with the making of the negative and developing the exposed film is part of that process and cannot be separated from it. However, subsection (2)(a) of section 32-A provides that if an assessee is engaged mainly in the business of production of an article not included in Schedule VII, it shall not be denied the allowance only because the machinery installed is also utilised in the production of an article in Schedule XI. In the present case, it is stated that the main business of the assessee is to make the positive prints from negative prints, and, therefore, the fact that occasionally exposed films are also developed will not disqualify the assessee from claiming the allowance.
The Revenue took another objection to the claim of the assessee stating that the processing of cinematograph film for obtaining positive prints cannot be regarded as manufacture or production of an article as it amounted only to the processing of an article which remains a cinematograph film before and after the process was carried out. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the test for determining whether manufacture can be said to have taken place is whether the commodity which is subjected to the process of manufacture can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but is recognised in the trade as a new and distinct commodity (see CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. (1993) 204 ITR 412 (SC)). The Supreme Court also observed that the word "production" has a wider connotation and takes in bringing into existence new goods by a process which may or may not amount to manufacture. Applying these tests, the Tribunal had found that by the processes carried out by the assessee, the raw films without images and sound, have been converted into films with images and sounds, which is certainly a new and distinct commodity well-known in the trade as positive prints quite different from raw film. We, therefore, uphold the decision of the Tribunal overruling this objection. The other objection which is implicit in the questions raised was that voltage stabiliser, electrical equipment and air-conditioner could not be treated as plant and machinery. But this objection has only to be stated to be rejected because admittedly these items have been granted depreciation treating them as plant and machinery actually used in the business of the assessee. Since the assessee has been found to be engaged in the business of manufacture or production of an article, which does not fall within the scope of item No.9 of Schedule XI, we have to uphold the order of the Tribunal granting investment allowance in respect thereof. Our answer to the first question as reframed by us is the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
With regard to the second question, as the Appellate Tribunal has found that for the assessment year 1984-85, the assessment was completed as "N.A." and since the assessee did not have profit in that year, the investment allowance had to be computed only for the purpose of being carried forward. Therefore, the rectification was sought only to make good the omission to make a claim for investment allowance. The Appellate Tribunal also noted the observations of the Gujarat High Court in Chokshi Metal Refinery v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 63, which held that the Central Board of Direct Taxes itself had cast the responsibility on the Income-tax Officer to draw the attention of the assessee to the relief to which the assessee was clearly entitled but which the assessee had omitted to claim. That omission also was not a bar to the assessee making the claim in the year in which there was a profit because the Supreme Court has held in CIT v. Manmohan Das (1966) 59 ITR 699, that a decision by the Assessing Officer who deals with the first year's assessment that the assessee cannot carry forward the loss to the next year is not binding on the assessee in the computation of the taxable income for the subsequent year in which there is a profit. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this objection of the Revenue is frivolous. This question is accordingly answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
In view of our answers to the two questions as refrained by us, we see no reason to direct the Tribunal to refer the questions, which were not referred by the Tribunal. The income-tax case is, therefore, dismissed.
M.B.A./1802/FCOrder accordingly.