2000 (8) TMI 30 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Interpretation of section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Prima facie adjustments and disallowance of deductions.
3. Rectification of assessment u/s 154.
4. Interpretation of tax audit report in Form No. 3CD.

Summary:

Issue 1: Interpretation of section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961

The Tribunal held that "there is always a distinction between accrual of liability and payability of such liability." It concluded that Explanation 2 to section 43B, which synchronizes the accrual of liability with payability, applies only to clause (a) of section 43B and not to clause (d). Therefore, the distinction between 'sum payable' and 'accrual of liability' is maintained in clause (d). The Tribunal found that the assessee was justified in debiting the profit and loss account for interest on loans from public financial institutions based on accrual of liability.

Issue 2: Prima facie adjustments and disallowance of deductions

The Tribunal opined that since there was no information in the return showing the interest had become payable, the Assessing Officer (AO) was not justified in exercising power u/s 143(1)(a). However, the High Court disagreed, stating that the AO can disallow deductions if they are prima facie impermissible based on the return and audit report. The audit report indicated that the interest was debited but not paid, justifying the AO's disallowance under section 43B(d).

Issue 3: Rectification of assessment u/s 154

The Tribunal held that the AO should have rectified the assessment u/s 154 based on the assessee's petition regarding the disallowance of interest. The High Court, however, found that the AO was correct in disallowing the deduction as the interest was not paid during the previous year, thus not warranting rectification.

Issue 4: Interpretation of tax audit report in Form No. 3CD

The Tribunal concluded that the information in column 7 of the tax audit report did not clearly indicate that the interest was payable, thus failing to invoke section 43B(d). The High Court disagreed, stating that the audit report clearly showed the interest was not paid, and thus the AO was justified in disallowing the deduction.

Conclusion:

The High Court answered the questions of law as follows:

- Question No. (1)(i): In the positive and in favor of the Department.
- Question No. (1)(ii): In the negative and in favor of the Department.
- Question No. (2)(i): In favor of the Department and in the negative.
- Question No. (2)(ii): In favor of the Department and against the assessee.

Questions Nos. (3) and (4) were considered facets of questions Nos. (1) and (2) and were covered by the answers to those questions.