1994 (2) TMI 269 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allowability of Excise Duty under section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance under section 37(3A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Deduction of litigation expenses related to Central Excise liability.

Summary:

1. Allowability of Excise Duty under section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The assessee, a public limited company, changed its method of accounting for excise duty on unsold goods. Previously, excise duty was included in the closing stock valuation, but the new method excluded it, treating it as a "deferred" item. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) rejected this change, arguing that section 43B allowed deductions only on actual payment basis and did not permit altering the closing stock valuation. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the ITO's decision, stating that section 43B did not justify tampering with the closing stock valuation. However, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the change in accounting method was bona fide and supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd., which stated that excise duty should be considered in determining net profits, not in calculating the cost of manufacture. The Tribunal emphasized that the entire excise duty paid should be deductible u/s 43B, and any change in the method of accounting that aligned with this principle was acceptable.

2. Disallowance under section 37(3A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The ITO included Rs. 26,19,000 as advertisement expenditure for rent/hire charges of shelf space in show windows, subject to disallowance u/s 37(3A). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allocated 50% of this expenditure towards "advertisement" and the remaining 50% towards "storage facilities." The Tribunal upheld this allocation, finding it reasonable and not requiring any modification.

3. Deduction of litigation expenses related to Central Excise liability:
The ITO disallowed Rs. 1,30,000 claimed as legal expenses for excise matters, arguing that the litigation benefited another company (NPI) and was not exclusively for the assessee's business. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the deduction, stating that the manufacturer had the locus standi to contest excise duty liabilities, and the benefit passing to customers did not negate the necessity of the litigation. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that excise duty was imposed on the manufacturer, who was justified in contesting wrongful levies, and upheld the deduction.

Conclusion:
The assessee's appeal was partly allowed concerning the change in accounting method for excise duty, while the Revenue's appeal was dismissed regarding the disallowance under section 37(3A) and the deduction of litigation expenses.