9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether sales tax collected by the assessee and paid after the end of the relevant previous year but within the time allowed under the relevant sales tax law is to be disallowed u/s 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, while computing the business income of the said previous year. Summary: 1. Legislative History and Interpretation of Section 43B: The court traced the legislative history of section 43B, which was inserted by the Finance Act, 1983, effective from April 1, 1984. Section 43B mandates that certain deductions, including taxes, are only allowable on actual payment. The original provisos introduced by the Finance Act, 1987, and subsequent amendments by the Finance Act, 1989, were discussed to clarify the legislative intent. The amendments aimed to address practical difficulties faced by taxpayers, particularly regarding the payment of sales tax for the last quarter of the previous year. 2. Interpretation of Proviso and Explanation 2: The court examined the proviso to section 43B, which allows deductions if the tax is paid by the due date for filing the return u/s 139(1). Explanation 2, introduced by the Finance Act, 1989, clarifies that "any sum payable" means a sum for which the liability was incurred in the previous year, even if not payable within that year. The court emphasized that the proviso should be read harmoniously with Explanation 2, indicating that the proviso was intended to be retrospective from April 1, 1984. 3. Judicial Precedents and Legislative Intent: The court referred to various judicial precedents, including the Patna High Court's decision in Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores v. Union of India, which held that the proviso to section 43B is retrospective. The court disagreed with the Delhi High Court's contrary view in Sanghi Motors v. Union of India and Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India. The court highlighted the importance of interpreting statutes to avoid unjust or absurd results and to achieve the legislative intent. 4. Tribunal's Decision and Procedural Observations: The court noted that the Tribunal had relied on an earlier decision without providing detailed reasons. It emphasized that when the Tribunal relies on an earlier decision, it should indicate the gist of the conclusions. The court also observed that some first appellate authorities had deleted additions on the ground that the amount was not claimed in the profit and loss account, a view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. S. B. Foundry. Conclusion: The court answered the question in the negative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, holding that the sales tax collected and paid within the time allowed under the relevant sales tax law should not be disallowed u/s 43B.
|
