JUDGMENT : Abdul Rehim, J. The assessee, M/s. Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., is an undertaking fully owned by the State of Kerala. The appellants in I.T. Appeal Nos.69/2014 & 74/2014 are the assessee and the Commissioner of Income Tax, respectively. Challenge in both these appeals are against the same order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in I.T.A. No.354/COCH/2013, dated 06-11-2013. I.T. Appeals 22/2019 and 23/2019 are filed by the assessee against a common order passed by the same Tribunal in I.T.A. Nos.90 & 91/COCH/2014, dated 02-05-2014. Substantial question of law raised in all the three appeals filed by the assessee is whether the disallowance made with respect to the expenditure incurred in relation to income derived out of the investments of the assessee during the relevant assessment years, by invoking Section 14A of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, is sustainable or not. In other words, whether the dis-allowance need to be limited only with respect to investments upon which the assessee had actually derived dividend, is the question raised. The substantial question of law raised in I.T.A. No.74/2014, filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax is, whether the demand shown as debit from the 'special reserve' created under Section 36 (1) (viii) of the Income Tax Act, as provision to be maintained with respect to 'bad and doubtful debts', can be considered as withdrawal from the 'special reserve', with respect to which the assessee is not eligible to get exemption under Section 41 (4A) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) provides that, for the purpose of computing total income under Chapter IV of the Act, no deduction shall be allowed with respect to expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. Section 10 of the Act under Chapter III provides about the income which do not form part of the total income. Sub-section (34) of Section 10 provides that, any income derived by way of dividend referred to in Section 115-O shall not from part of the total income. There is no dispute that the income derived as dividend out of the investments made by the assessee is exempted from the purview of total income, by virtue of Section 10 (34). Sub-section (34) of Section 10 provides that, any income derived by way of dividend referred to in Section 115-O shall not from part of the total income. There is no dispute that the income derived as dividend out of the investments made by the assessee is exempted from the purview of total income, by virtue of Section 10 (34). Question arising is, whether the assessee can claim that no expenditure was incurred in deriving the dividend, which will not form part of the total income. In other words, is it permissible to make any disallowance from the total expenditure in the above respect. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules' for short) provides the method for determining the amount of expenditure incurred with respect to the income which do not form part of the total income. Sub-clause (b) of Rule 8D provides that, if the claim made by the assessee is that no expenditure is incurred in relation to the income which does not form part of the total income under the Act, with respect to the previous year, the Assessing Officer shall determine the amount of expenditure in relation to such income in accordance with the provisions of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 8D. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 8D provides the method of calculation of the expenditure with respect to income which does not form part of the total income. Sub-clause (iii) of Rule 8D (2), which as stood at the time of the relevant assessment year, is reproduced below; “Section 8D (2) (iii).- An amount equal to one-half percent of the average of the value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the previous year.” 3. While computing the average value of the investment for the purpose of Rule 8D (2) (iii), whether the total investments of the assessee made in between the first and the last day of the previous year need to be reckoned; or whether those investments with respect to which any dividend is actually derived alone need to be computed. In this respect the wordings of the above said provisions assumes importance. In this respect the wordings of the above said provisions assumes importance. One-half percent of average of the value of investment as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee on the first day and the last day of the previous year, with respect to the investment, income of which does not form part of the total income, need to be computed as the deemed expenditure. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant /assessee contended that, while computing average of the value of the investment, only those investments from which dividend was actually derived, which shall not form part of the total income, alone need to be reckoned, is the contention. 4. Per contra, Standing Counsel for Government of India (Taxes), appearing for the revenue contended that, it is the average of the value of the total investment during the previous last day, has to be reckoned for computing the deemed expenditure. 5. On the facts of the case, while finalising the assessments, the Assessing Officer computed half percentage of average value of the total investments, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, and disallowed the same from the expenditure claimed. In the appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thiruvananthapuram upheld the assessment, by relying on a decision of the Bombay High Court in Goodrej & boycee Manufacturing Company Ltd., Mumbai v. DCIT. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal while considering the issue had confirmed the manner of computation made based on the average value of the investments made during the previous years relevant to the assessment years concerned. Observation was that, as per Rule 8D(2)(iii), average value of the entire investments, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, is required to be reckoned for the purpose of computation of the expenditure. It was interpreted that, average of the value of the entire investment made in shares is required to be considered for computation of the one half percentage. With respect to the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, the Tribunal in I.T.A Nos.90 and 91 of 2014, followed the earlier decision rendered by the Tribunal, which is as mentioned above. 6. Contention of the appellant/assessee is mainly based on the interpretation of Rule 8D(2)(iii). With respect to the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, the Tribunal in I.T.A Nos.90 and 91 of 2014, followed the earlier decision rendered by the Tribunal, which is as mentioned above. 6. Contention of the appellant/assessee is mainly based on the interpretation of Rule 8D(2)(iii). According to learned counsel for the appellant, the wording, “income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income”, which is inserted after the wording “an amount equal to one-half percent of the average of the value of investment”, with a 'comma' inserted in between, would clearly indicate that the average of the value of the investment, which need to be computed, stands qualified by the subsequent wordings “income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income”. Therefore the average of the value of investment from which any income has been derived during the relevant year, which does not form part of the total income, alone can be reckoned for computing the one-half percent, is the contention. 7. But on a plain reading of Sub Clause (iii) of Rule 8D(2), it would be clear that, the method of calculation intended is, to compute average of the value of the investments, as appearing in the balance sheet as on the first and as on the last day of the year concerned is to be taken. The investment reflected in the balance sheet as on the opening of the financial year and the investment reflected in the balance sheet as on the closing of the financial year has to be reckoned. The average of the value of the investment reflected on both these days has to be adopted for the purpose of computing one-half percent, towards the expenditure. The wording, “income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income”, is inserted only for the purpose of clarifying that, the average of the value of the investments, with respect to which the income derived shall not form part of the total income, need to be computed. The wording cannot in any manner be construed as intended or reflected to confine it with respect to investments from which any income was actually derived during the financial year. The wording cannot in any manner be construed as intended or reflected to confine it with respect to investments from which any income was actually derived during the financial year. Rule 8D(2)(iii) would apply in a case were the assessee claims that no expenditure was incurred in relation to the income derived, which does not form part of the total income. Therefore it is a provision enabling the Assessing Officer to compute a deemed figure, as the expenditure incurred with respect to the dividend earned, which does not form part of the total income. When the statute provides such a method of computation of the deemed expenditure, it cannot be contended that, it should be calculated on the basis of those investments from which dividend was actually derived. It is pertinent to note that, the statue does not provide that the computation need to be made based only on the value of investment in which any dividend has been derived. Since the computation is to be made based on average of the value of the investments, it does not provide that the investments can be segregated into, and the non-profit deriving investments can be excluded for the purpose of computing average of the value as appearing in the balance sheet, on the opening and closing day of the year concerned. With respect to a particular investment, there may be profit derived during any part of a financial year. The very same investment will become non-profit deriving during some other period within the same financial year itself. It is because of this, the legislature has provided a particular methodology for computing one-half percentage of the average of the value of the investments reflected in the balance sheet, as on the date of commencement and as on the date of closing of the financial year. Hence the interpretation of the provision as canvased by the appellant/assessee cannot be accepted. 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue had drawn our attention to a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Max-opp investment Ltd., v. Commissioner of Income Tax: (2018)402 ITR 640 (SC). While interpreting the provisions contained in Section 14A of the Act, it is held that, the dominant purpose for which the investment in shares made by an assessee may not be relevant. While interpreting the provisions contained in Section 14A of the Act, it is held that, the dominant purpose for which the investment in shares made by an assessee may not be relevant. Whether the investment was made in order to gain control of the investee company, does not appear to be a relevant factor in determining the issue with respect to the expenditure incurred for getting the income, which is not includable in the total income. When such dividend income is remaining non-taxable, if any expenditure is incurred on earning the dividend, that much of the expenditure has to be disallowed and cannot be treated as business expenditure. Therefore it was observed, the word “in relation to the income” finding place in Section 14A has to be interpreted as expenditure incurred in relation to the income which is not forming part of the total income. Therefore it is held that, the principle of apportionment of expenses comes into play, as that is the principle which engraved in Section 14A of the Act. 9. In the case at hand, question is with respect to computation of the deemed expenditure as provided under Rule 8D(2)(iii). When the assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred in relation to the income derived, which does not form part of the total income, there is no question of any apportionment being made for the purpose of computing the deemed expenditure to be disallowed, in between average of the value of investments, in between the investments with respect to which any income is derived and no income is derived. The method of calculation of the deemed expenditure provided is based on the average of the value of the total investment reflected in the balance sheet, as on the first and last day of the year, the income from which shall not form part of the total income. The Rule provides the specific method to take the average of the value of the total investment, as reflected in the balance sheet as on the first and as on the last day of the financial year. Therefore, the dictum contained in the above cited decision can be co-related to the issue involved herein. 10. The Rule provides the specific method to take the average of the value of the total investment, as reflected in the balance sheet as on the first and as on the last day of the financial year. Therefore, the dictum contained in the above cited decision can be co-related to the issue involved herein. 10. Learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on a decision of this court in Lakshadweep Development Corporation Limited V. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and another (2019) 411 ITR 213 (KER) (FB), in order to support the contention that, with respect to interpretation of any fiscal statute if there exists any doubt, construction which is most beneficial to the assessee should be adopted, even if it results in obtaining an advantage to the assesee. It is also pointed out that, the said ruling had emphasisd that, the rule of strict interpretation has to be followed in taxing statutes. The said ruling was also pressed into service to canvass the position that, if there is any defect in the phraseology used by the legislature, courts cannot aid the legislature's defective phrasing of an Act or add, amend, or by construction make up, the deficiencies which are left in the Act. It is held that, where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for application of, either the doctrine of "casus omissus" or of pressing into service of any external aid. But in the case at hand, as already observed, we do not find any ambiguity or doubt in the plain language of Rule 8D (2) (iii), warranting any interpretation by the court. So also we do not feel that there occurred any omission on the part of the legislature which need to be supplied into the Rule in question. As already observed, the language used by the legislature does not give room for any interpretation other than what was observed as in the foregoing paragraphs. 11. Under the above mention circumstances, we find that the question of law raised need to be answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Consequently all the three appeals filed by the assessee fail in merit and they are liable to be dismissed. 12. Question raised in ITA No.74/2014, filed by the CIT need to be dealt with separately. Consequently all the three appeals filed by the assessee fail in merit and they are liable to be dismissed. 12. Question raised in ITA No.74/2014, filed by the CIT need to be dealt with separately. Chapter IV of the Income Tax Act deals with the computation of the total income. The deduction allowable in computation of the total income is enumerated under different sections within the said Chapter. Section 28 under the said Chapter deals with computation of 'profits and gains of business or profession' Section 36 provides about other deduction allowable with respect to computation of the income referred to in Section 28. Sub-clause (viii) of Section 36 (1) allows deduction in respect of any 'special reserve' created and maintained by a specific entity, to the extent of an amount not exceeding twenty percent of the profits derived from eligible business computed under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”, which is carried to such reserve account. Section 41 (4A) of the Act provides that, where a deduction has been allowed in respect of any special reserve created and maintained under clause (viii) of Section 36(1), any amount subsequently withdrawn from such special reserve shall be deemed to be profits and gains of business or profession and accordingly be chargeable to income tax as income of the previous year in which such amount is withdrawn. On the facts of the case at hand, with respect to the assessment year 20082009 the assessee was eligible for deduction of special reserve created under 36(1)(viii). But the Assessing Officer found that, the assessee in its annual account has reduced the special reserve created, as loans and advances to the tune of Rs.53,96,19,451/-. The assessee was asked to explain as to why the amount shown as deduction from the special reserve shall not be disallowed. It was replied that, the assessee had to make a provision for 'bad and doubtful debts' as per the norms and guidelines issued by the IDBI. By the said norms the assessee was permitted to take into account the available special reserve created under section 36 (1)(viii) also for the purpose of meeting the provision for bad and doubtful debts, as per the guidelines of IDBI. By the said norms the assessee was permitted to take into account the available special reserve created under section 36 (1)(viii) also for the purpose of meeting the provision for bad and doubtful debts, as per the guidelines of IDBI. Therefore it was explained that, in the annual accounts, the above said amount was shown as reduction from the loans and advances as well as from the special reserve, only as a contra entry. It is pointed out that, the special reserve account under section 36(1)(viii) was maintained intact. Therefore the assessee had fully complied with the condition with respect to creating and maintaining of the special reserve. But the Assessing Officer took the stand that the explanation offered with respect to transfer of the amount from the special reserve account, as in compliance with the guidelines of IDBI for the purpose of making the provision with respect of 'bad and doubtful debts', is not acceptable. It was found that the assessee had failed to keep the money in the special reserve account from not being withdrawn and therefore the amount in question need to be added to the total income under section 41 (4A) of the Act. 13. The first appellate authority has not accepted the contentions of the assessee, that no amount has been withdrawn from the special reserve and the adjustment was made only for the purpose of presentation in the balance sheet in schedule II, with respect to the amounts of loans and advances, which is shown only as a contra entry as reduced from the special reserves. It was held that, the assessee had made only an unsuccessful attempt to give an impression that there was no withdrawal from the special reserve. It was also held that, such an attempt made in the balance sheet cannot in any manner prevent the applicability of section 41 (4A). Hence, the assessment made in this regard was upheld. In the second appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal, it was found that, the question boils down to whether the action of the assessee in considering the amount available in special reserve for the purpose of making provision for 'bad and doubtful debts', would amount to utilisation of the special reserve or not. In the second appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal, it was found that, the question boils down to whether the action of the assessee in considering the amount available in special reserve for the purpose of making provision for 'bad and doubtful debts', would amount to utilisation of the special reserve or not. The Tribunal took the view that the provisions contained in Section 41(4A) would not apply as long as the assessee maintains the special reserve account, in his books of accounts. It is found that, the method of presentation made in the balance sheet does not matter for the purpose of Section 36(1)(viii), read with Section 41(4A) of the Act. It was held that the assessee has shown no debit in the special reserve account and hence the assessee has not utilised any amount available in the reserve account, as presumed by the tax authorities. Hence the Tribunal found that, there is no reason to invoke Section 41(4A), based on the balance sheet, wherein only an adjustment has been done by the assessee for the purpose of presenting it to the shareholders and the regulator. Therefore the addition made in this regard was set aside. The revenue is challenging the said finding. The question of law raised is as to whether the assessment made by invoking Section 41 (4A) was legal and whether the Tribunal was right in interfering with it. 14. Section 36(1)(viii) allows deduction with respect to the special reserve created and maintained, to the extent of an amount not exceeding twenty percent of the profit derived from eligible business, subject to the restriction that the aggregate of the amounts carried to such reserve account from time to time shall not exceed twice the amounts of the paid up share capital and of the general reserves of the specified entity. But section 41(4A) puts up a restriction from withdrawing any amount from such special reserve. It provides that, in respect of any special reserve created and maintained under section 36(1)(viii), with respect to which a deduction has been allowed, any amount subsequently withdrawn from such special reserve shall be treated as profits and gains out of business, which is chargeable to income tax, taking it as income of the previous year in which such amount is withdrawn. Therefore the question mooted for decision is as to whether the assessee had withdrawn any amount from the special reserve created and maintained, during the relevant year. 15. Contention of learned counsel for the assessee is that, the special reserve created under section 36(1)(viii) was maintained as such and the provision with respect to 'bad and doubtful debt' was shown in the balance sheet only for the purpose of complying with the mandatory requirements contained in the guidelines issued by the IDBI. Therefore there is no withdrawal effected from the special reserve created and maintained under section 36(1)(viii). Per contra, learned standing counsel for the revenue pointed out that, corresponding deductions in the account of loans and advances was shown in the balance sheet, which would clearly indicate that there occurred a deduction out of the special reserve maintained. Controverting the said contention, learned counsel for the assessee replied that, for attracting Section 41(4A) there should be an actual withdrawal from the special reserve created. As there is no withdrawal effected by the assessee, the contra entry made in the balance sheet, cannot be taken as a physical withdrawal from the special reserve created, in order to attract section 41(4A). 16. Section 41 (4A) provides that where a deduction has been allowed in respect of any special reserve created and maintained under sub-section 36 (1) (viii), any amount subsequently withdrawn from such special reserve shall be deemed to be profits and gains of business or profession and accordingly be chargeable to income tax, as the income of the previous year in which such amount is withdrawn. Therefore it is clear that, in order to attract Section 41 (4A) there should be a subsequent withdrawal from the special reserve created. Hence the question to be considered is whether there occurred a subsequent withdrawal from the special reserve created. The Tribunal had considered the nature of the provision made for 'bad and doubtful debts'. It is a provision made in order to comply with the guidelines issued by the IDBI. The Tribunal referred to the said guidelines and found that, according to the guidelines, an amount available in the special reserve account under Section 36 (1) (viii) of the Act is admissible for the purpose of the provision created. It is a provision made in order to comply with the guidelines issued by the IDBI. The Tribunal referred to the said guidelines and found that, according to the guidelines, an amount available in the special reserve account under Section 36 (1) (viii) of the Act is admissible for the purpose of the provision created. The Tribunal observed that, going by the guidelines, the assessee can take into consideration of the amount available in the special reserve account, while determining the amount of provision. Factually it is admitted that, in the books of accounts kept by the assessee with respect to the special reserve, there is no withdrawal or deduction made. The Tribunal noticed the Circular of IDBI which permitted the assessee to create special reserve under Section 36 (1) (viii) of the Act and the cumulative balance available as special reserve is made admissible for the provision to be created for assets classified as doubtful or loss. The first Appellate Authority observed that, it is deemed to be taken that, there occurred a transfer of funds from the special reserve account to the provision for bad and doubtful debts. According to the first Appellate Authority, the assessee had made only an attempt to give an impression that there was no withdrawal from the special reserve ledger account. The Tribunal found that creation of provision for bad and doubtful debts, by utilizing the amount available in the said reserve account, as permitted by the IDBI, does not mean that the assessee had actually withdrawn the special reserve account. Therefore it is held that Section 41 (4A) cannot be applied. 17. While considering the issue, we take note of the fact that there occurred no actual withdrawal in the special reserve account. But there occurred only creation of a provision for bad and doubtful debts, by utilizing the special reserve, as permitted in the circular of the IDBI. Hence the finding that the contra entries made in the balance sheet would reveal with respect to a subsequent withdrawal made, cannot be sustained. We do not think that there exist any question of law to be decided when there is a specific finding on the facts, rendered by the Tribunal to the effect that there occurred no withdrawal from the special reserve account. 18. We do not think that there exist any question of law to be decided when there is a specific finding on the facts, rendered by the Tribunal to the effect that there occurred no withdrawal from the special reserve account. 18. Learned Standing Counsel for the revenue had placed reliance on the decisions of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Southern Technologies Limited V. Joint Commissioner of Income tax (2010) 320 ITR 577 (SC) and Vijaya Bank V. Commissioner of Income Tax and another (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC). We notice that the issue decided therein pertains to creation of provision under Section 36 (1) (vii) and not with respect to the question regarding withdrawal of special reserve coming within the ambit and scope of Section 41 (4A). Since there exists a factual finding that there was no subsequent withdrawal of the special reserve created, the assessment made by invoking Section 41 (4A) need to be held as legally unsustainable. Hence the question raised in this regard need to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Consequently the appeal filed by the revenue fails and is liable to be dismissed. In the result all the above appeals are hereby dismissed.