2013 (10) TMI 1292 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of amount paid towards house tax - Duty paid under protest - Held that - demand of property tax was raised during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year under consideration it pertained to the previous year under consideration and the payment for the same has also been made during the year under consideration - Though at the time of hearing it is stated by learned counsel that in the forwarding letter only the assessee has mentioned that the demand raised is contrary to law and the assessee is making payment under protest however thereafter the assessee has not challenged the above demand before any court of law. However in view of the decision of the hon ble apex court 1971 (8) TMI 10 - SUPREME Court it is evident that even if the assessee has disputed the liability it will be no bar in allowing the deduction for the same unless and until the assessee got relief in this regard. It is not in dispute that there was no reduction in liability of property tax during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year under consideration - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Disallowed house tax amount under protest.

Analysis:
The appeal by the Revenue was against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax for the assessment year 2002-03, specifically challenging the deletion of the disallowance of a certain amount paid towards house tax. The Revenue contended that the entire demand raised by NDMC was paid by the assessee under protest, and the disputed amount was only a fraction of the total. The Revenue argued that the Commissioner's decision should be reversed due to lack of documentary evidence supporting the assessee's claim. On the other hand, the assessee maintained that the entire demand was paid, even though it was disputed, and challenged the addition sustained by the Commissioner in a cross-appeal.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal referred to a previous apex court decision in a similar case involving a disputed liability of sales tax. The apex court had ruled that the liability to pay tax arises when transactions subject to tax occur, regardless of any ongoing dispute. The Tribunal found that the same principle applied to the case at hand. The Tribunal noted that the demand for property tax was raised during the relevant accounting year, the payment was made in the same year, and the liability was not reduced. Despite the assessee disputing the demand, the Tribunal held that the deduction for the entire liability should be allowed until relief was obtained. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the disallowance sustained by the Commissioner, in favor of the assessee.

Regarding other grounds raised in the cross-appeal by the assessee related to the validity of the notice under section 148, the Tribunal ruled that since the deduction of liability was allowed on merits, those grounds were treated as not pressed and rejected. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.