ORDER Per Shri T. N. C. Rangarajan, Judicial Member - These appeals are directed against the orders of the CIT (Appeals) relating to the computation of the capital base for the purpose of surtax. 2. The assessee is a company. For the assessment year 1982-83, corresponding to the previous year ended 31-3-1982, the Assessing Officer made a reducting of a sum of Rs. 7,871 under Rule 1 of the Second Schedule in computing the capital base. No reasons were given in his order for the reducting. For the assessment year 1983-84, corresponding to the previous year ended 31-3-1983, a similar reduction of Rs. 7,871 was made. However, in the note at the bottom of the assessment order it was mentioned. "(X) Capital computed is reduced by excess depreciation allowed in earlier years applying Rule 1(3) of the II Schedule as clarified by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Zenith Steel Pipes Ltd., [1978] 112 ITR 215." 3. On appeal the CIT (Appeals) followed the decision of the Bombay High Court, cited above, and confirmed the reduction in the capital base. 4. In the further appeals before us it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the decision of the Bombay High Court could not be applied to the facts of the case for two reasons and in any event it required re-consideration. It was pointed out that the surplus of the year had not been entirely appropriated to the general reserve and part of those profits had gone to meet the tax liability and also to provide for the distribution of dividends and hence it could not be said that the difference between the amount of depreciation actually allowed in Income-tax and the amount of depreciation provided for in the books of the assessee had entirely gone into the reserve so as to apply Rule 1(iii) of the Second Schedule of the Companies Profits (Surtax) Act, 1964. That rule states that the capital of the company shall be the aggregate of the amounts, as on the first day of the previous year, of the paid up share capital, its reserves and 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 Income-tax Act. It was pointed out that in the present assessments there was no fiding that the difference between the depreciation actually allowed and the depreciation provided for had been actually credited to the reserves because it could have been appropriated to other purposes such as distribution of dividend or to meet some other liability. It was submitted that such a finding was given in the case of CIT v. Zenith Steel Pipes Ltd., [1978] 112 ITR 215 (Bom.) and, therefore, that decision could not be applied to the present case. 5. On a reading of the decision of the Bombay High Court, we find that the facts given there do not take specifically that such a finding was given in the case for, there also it was stated that out of surplus profits a sum of Rs. 7,50,000 was transferred to the general reserves meaning thereby that there was a balance which had been appropriated for other purposes. Since the facts in the present case appear to be identical with the facts of Zenith Steel Pipes Ltd., the assessee is unable to avoid the decision of that decision. 6. The second point made by the assessee is that the difference between the depreciation actually allowed and the provision made for Income-tax purposes referred to the earlier years and unless the capital of the earlier years had been rectified in surtax proceedings, it is not possible to reduce the capital for this year alone because such a difference did not pertain to this year. It was particularly emphasised that the capital base had been accepted as such for the earlier years and as long as such a computation for the purpose of surtax for earlier years stood unamended the revenue could not take a reduced capital for this year as representing the capital of the earlier year. Though this argument appears to be attractive, we find that it cannot be accepted because each years capital base has to be worked out independently under the Second Schedule. If the assessing officer had made a mistake in not making a reduction for the earlier year it cannot preclude him from making the appropriate reduction as required by the Rule as interpreted by the Bombay High Court when he is making the assessment for the current year. If the assessing officer had made a mistake in not making a reduction for the earlier year it cannot preclude him from making the appropriate reduction as required by the Rule as interpreted by the Bombay High Court when he is making the assessment for the current year. It is not as if the capital base is that which is brought forward from the earlier year and, therefore, this argument also has to be rejected. 7. It was lastly contended on behalf of the assessee that the decision of the Bombay High Court in Zenith Steel Pipes Ltd., (supra) itself requires re-consideration because under the Rule it is only the amount allowed as a deduction in computing income for Income-tax that is to be reduced and the difference between the depreciation provided and the depreciation actually allowed would not be treated as an amount allowed as a deduction from the reserves under the Income-tax Act. In other words, it was pointed out that so far as Income-tax computation is concerned, there was no question of allowing a deduction of any part of the reserve unless specifically provided for in the Act, such as development reserve or deduction u/s. 80HHA. It was further pointed out that the department itself has understood the scope of this Rule in that manner by circular No. 53 (F. No. 7/2/68-TPL) dated 11-1-1971 (Direct Taxes Circulars, 1988, Vol. 2 page 1837). We note that the circular referred to by the assessee has not been considered by the High court and it is well-settled principle of interpretation that courts in considering a statute will give much weight to the interpretation put upon it at the time of its enactment and since by those whose duty it has been to construe, execute and supply it. (See K. P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 at 612 (SC)). However, since the rule has already been interpreted by the High Court it is not for us to re-consider the matter as we must, as at present advised, respectfully follow the decision as it stands. In the circumstances, we cannot but confirm the orders of the authorities below. 8. The appeals are dismissed.