1998 (3) TMI 127 - HC - Income Tax

Advance Tax, Assessment Year, Failure To File Estimate, Previous Year, Regular Assessment, Total Income

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Deduction of gratuity liability.
2. Deduction of surtax liability.
3. Set off of deficiencies under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. Application of rule 6B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, to presentation articles.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deduction of Gratuity Liability:

The Tribunal did not allow the claim of deduction of gratuity liability for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76, and 1976-77. The controversy was resolved in favor of the Revenue by the Supreme Court decision in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 585. Consequently, the court answered this question in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue.

2. Deduction of Surtax Liability:

The Tribunal's decision to not allow the deduction of surtax liability for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 was upheld. The controversy was resolved in favor of the Revenue by the decisions in Lubrizol India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 25 and Smith Kline and French (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 581. Thus, this question was also answered in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue.

3. Set Off of Deficiencies under Section 80J:

The controversy pertained to whether deficiencies for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 could be set off against the profits of the assessment year 1975-76. The Tribunal held that the deficiencies could not be set off as they were barred by limitation under sub-section (3) of section 80J. The limitation of seven years was to be reckoned from the end of the initial assessment year, which was 1965-66. Therefore, the seventh assessment year was 1973-74, and the deficiencies could not be carried forward beyond this period. The court agreed with the Tribunal's interpretation, emphasizing that statutory language must be construed according to its plain meaning, and beneficial interpretation principles apply only when there is genuine doubt about the provision's interpretation. Consequently, the court answered this question in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue.

4. Application of Rule 6B to Presentation Articles:

The Tribunal upheld the application of rule 6B to presentation articles. The assessee argued that this controversy was resolved in their favor by CIT v. Allana Sons Pvt. Ltd. [1995] 216 ITR 690. However, the court found that in the present case, there was no finding that the articles did not advertise the assessee's products. The Tribunal had affirmed the disallowance as no material was presented to show that the Commissioner's action was contrary to rule 6B(2). The court held that the finding was primarily factual and had not been challenged on the ground of perversity. Therefore, this question was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue.

Conclusion:

All four questions were answered in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue, thereby upholding the Tribunal's decisions on all issues. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.