9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Deductibility of penalty paid by the assessee for breach of the Customs Act as business expenditure. 2. Interpretation of whether penalty paid for breach of law during the course of trade is deductible as a commercial loss. 3. Comparison of infraction of law in a lawful business versus an inherently unlawful business. 4. Consideration of whether penalty paid for infraction of law should be regarded as expenditure incurred during the course of business. Analysis: The High Court of Gujarat was tasked with determining the deductibility of a penalty paid by the assessee for breaching the Customs Act as business expenditure. The assessee, engaged in textile manufacturing and exports, imported goods against licences with inflated values, resulting in a penalty of Rs. 4,18,000 imposed by the customs authorities. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction claim, leading to appeals up to the Tribunal level. The court referenced the Supreme Court decision in Haji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT, emphasizing that penalties for law breaches are not deductible as commercial losses. The court distinguished between lawful business infractions and inherently unlawful activities, concluding that penalties for the latter are not deductible business expenses. The advocate for the assessee argued that the penalty should be considered a business expenditure as the assessee did not forge the licences knowingly and treated them as valid. Drawing parallels with cases from the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts, the advocate contended that unless the assessee acted in defiance of the law, the penalty should be deductible. However, the court, relying on its previous judgment in the assessee's case, maintained that the penalty did not represent a commercial loss and thus could not be claimed as a deductible expense. The court rejected the argument that the penalty should be treated as a cost of doing business, emphasizing the distinction between lawful and unlawful business activities. The court also considered the advocate's request for a certificate under section 261 of the Act for appeal to the Supreme Court. Noting that the Supreme Court had already granted special leave to appeal in a related matter and considering the legal arguments presented, the court deemed it a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court. Consequently, the court certified the case as suitable for appeal to the higher court, allowing for further legal scrutiny of the issues raised in the judgment.
|
