2000 (7) TMI 17 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in disallowing the claim of Rs. 3,00,000?

Summary:

Issue: Disallowance of Rs. 3,00,000 Claim

The assessee-company, engaged in manufacturing vessels for chemical industries, entered into a contract with Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd. for the supply and erection of a spray drying plant for Rs. 40 lakhs. During the assessment year 1977-78, the assessee was paid Rs. 34.49 lakhs, but a dispute arose regarding the quality of the plant. Consequently, the assessee debited Rs. 3 lakhs from its sales account to a warranty account, anticipating non-receipt of this amount due to the warranty clause.

The Assessing Officer disallowed the Rs. 3 lakhs deduction, stating that the claim was still in dispute and could not be allowed until settled. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the assessee's claim, but the Tribunal reversed this decision, restoring the assessment made by the Assessing Officer.

The court examined whether the Tribunal was correct in disallowing the Rs. 3 lakhs claim. According to section 5 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, income is taxable when it accrues, arises, or is received. The court referred to precedents, including CIT v. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai and E. D. Sassoon and Co. Ltd. v. CIT, which clarified that income accrues when the right to receive it becomes vested in the assessee.

The court noted that the contract between the assessee and Godrej included a clause allowing Godrej to retain 10% of the contract price until the plant was handed over in perfect condition. Given the plant's unsatisfactory quality, Godrej retained Rs. 4 lakhs, and the assessee had no immediate right to receive this amount. The court emphasized that book entries alone do not determine income accrual; the terms of the contract must be considered.

The court concluded that the Rs. 3 lakhs had not accrued as income to the assessee since no debt was created in its favor. Even if the income had accrued, the assessee's liability for plant repairs arose in the same year, justifying the deduction. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in disallowing the claim.

Judgment:
The court answered the question in the negative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, disposing of the reference with no order as to costs.