9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Interpretation of rental agreement, deduction of arrears of rent under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The judgment pertains to a case where the assessee, an individual, had taken a property on rent for business purposes under an agreement. The agreement specified a rent of Rs. 3,000 per month, with a provision for an additional amount of Rs. 5,000 per month in case of default. The landlord later sued for possession and damages, leading to a decree in November 1970. The assessee claimed that the tenancy was renewed orally on the same terms, but had to pay the additional amount due to the court decree. In the assessment year 1974-75, the assessee sought to deduct the additional rent, litigation expenses, and costs incurred. The Income-tax Officer disallowed these deductions, but the Appellate Tribunal allowed them under section 37 of the Income-tax Act. The primary issue before the court was whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the arrears of rent as a deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act in the assessment year 1974-75. The Revenue contended that the amount was payable as rent under the original agreement itself, and thus not admissible as a deduction for the year in question. However, the court disagreed, noting that the original agreement specified the higher amount only in default, and the assessee had accounted for the accepted rent of Rs. 3,000 per month. The liability to pay the additional amount arose only upon the court decree, indicating that it accrued in the relevant assessment year. Further, the court addressed the argument that if the nature of the amount was rent, it should be allowed only under section 30 of the Act. However, it was clarified that the mercantile method of accounting was followed by the assessee, and the liability to pay the additional amount accrued based on the court order during the relevant previous year. As per the definition of "paid" in section 43(2), the deduction was permissible since the liability was incurred in the relevant assessment year. The court upheld the Appellate Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the amount became payable only in the year in question, and therefore, ruled in favor of the assessee. The judgment concluded by answering the referred question in the affirmative and against the Revenue, with no costs awarded.
|
