9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
The judgment involves the interpretation of provisions of section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the treatment of Mandi tax payment as either a tax or a fee for the assessment year 1985-86. Issue 1 - Treatment of Mandi Tax Payment: The respondent-assessee, a dealer in kirana and general goods, grains, and other items, claimed a liability of Rs. 1,12,269 towards Mandi tax payment for the assessment year 1985-86. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim under section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the amount was not paid but only provisioned for. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the claim, stating that the tax did not fall under section 43B due to maintaining accounts on a mercantile basis. The Tribunal upheld this decision, distinguishing between tax and fee, ruling that Mandi tax was a fee and not a tax, hence section 43B did not apply. Issue 2 - Interpretation of Section 43B: Section 43B, during the relevant period, allowed deductions only when sums payable by the assessee as tax or duty under any law were actually paid. An amendment in 1988 included sums payable towards cess and fee, indicating that the original provisions did not cover cess or fee. The key question was whether Mandi tax or market fee constituted a tax or a fee. The distinction lies in taxes being for general revenue without a quid pro quo, while fees are for specific services rendered. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Kewal Krishan Puri v. State of Punjab, it was established that Mandi tax was a fee with the necessary element of quid pro quo, thus not falling under section 43B. In conclusion, the High Court held that the Mandi tax payment was rightly treated as a fee, not a tax, and therefore, the provisions of section 43B did not apply. The addition of Rs. 1,12,269 was correctly deleted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and upheld by the Tribunal. Consequently, all questions raised by the Revenue were answered against them and in favor of the assessee.
|
