2002 (2) TMI 14 - HC - Income Tax

Whether, Tribunal erred in law in setting aside the matters to the Assessing Officer with the directions that no disallowances were to be made under section 43B, of Rs. 6,570/ Rs. 5,303/Rs. 24,672/Rs. 13,459 if such payments had been made on or before the due date applicable for furnishing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? - We answer the question in the negative, as that the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer with the direction to the Assessing Officer not to disallow the amount under section 43B of the Act, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Interpretation of section 43B - Disallowance of sales tax deduction - Applicability of first proviso to section 43B - Retrospective effect of statutory amendments.

Analysis:

1. Application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The Tribunal referred a question regarding the correctness of setting aside matters to the Assessing Officer with directions on disallowances under section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The issue revolved around the disallowance of deductions for sales tax not deposited during the accounting year but paid during the grace period.

2. Interpretation of section 43B:
The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction of sales tax paid after the accounting year but during the grace period. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal, holding that payment during the grace period does not attract the provisions of section 43B. The Tribunal upheld this view, emphasizing the timing of sales tax payment in relation to the accounting year.

3. Disallowance of sales tax deduction:
The core issue was whether the disallowance of sales tax deductions for payments made during the grace period was justified under section 43B. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal both ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that if sales tax was paid during the grace period, it should not be disallowed under section 43B.

4. Applicability of first proviso to section 43B:
The judgment referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677, which clarified the retrospective effect of the first proviso to section 43B. The Court highlighted various High Court decisions supporting the retrospective nature of the amendment, emphasizing the curative and explanatory intent of the statutory change.

5. Retrospective effect of statutory amendments:
The High Court concurred with the Supreme Court's interpretation in Allied Motors case, stating that the first proviso to section 43B should be applied retrospectively. Citing legal principles, the Court emphasized that a curative or declaratory statute is generally intended to have a retrospective effect to fulfill its purpose. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee against the Revenue.

In conclusion, the High Court answered the referred question in the negative, supporting the Tribunal's decision to set aside the Assessing Officer's order and directing not to disallow the amount under section 43B, in line with the precedents and legal principles discussed in the judgment.