9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Relevance of the judgment in CIT v. Guruswamy and Co. to the present case. Summary: Issue 1: Applicability of Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 The core issue revolves around the interpretation of section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The relevant assessment year is 1975-76, during which the assessee credited a sum of Rs. 2,11,773 to his capital account, including Rs. 1,67,221 received as a refund from the excise department. This amount was previously paid as a litre fee and allowed as a deduction in earlier assessment years (1970-71 to 1973-74). The State of Karnataka had levied a litre fee, which was later declared unconstitutional, leading to a refund of the collected fee. The primary question was whether the refunded amount should be taxed u/s 41(1). The court held that section 41(1) is applicable. The provision states that if an allowance or deduction has been made in respect of any loss, expenditure, or trading liability and the assessee subsequently receives any amount in respect of such loss or expenditure, it shall be deemed to be profits and gains of business or profession and chargeable to income-tax. The court emphasized that the term "in respect of" should be understood broadly, meaning "purporting to be" or "considered as." Hence, the refunded litre fee, initially allowed as an expenditure, is taxable u/s 41(1). Issue 2: Relevance of the judgment in CIT v. Guruswamy and Co. The assessee relied on the unreported decision in CIT v. Guruswamy and Co., where the Supreme Court had declared the levy of health cess unconstitutional. The Tribunal in that case held that since the levy was illegal from the inception, section 41(1) could not be invoked as there was no liability initially. However, the court distinguished this case, stating that the earlier bench had assumed the deduction was in respect of a trading liability without examining the distinction between "expenditure" and "trading liability." The court concluded that the deduction given to the assessee for the litre fee was by way of an expenditure. Therefore, the refunded amounts, received after the levy was declared unconstitutional, are taxable u/s 41(1). The court also noted that the trend of judicial decisions supports taxing such refunds under section 41, even if the taxes were paid under an unconstitutional levy. Conclusion: The court answered the first question in the affirmative, holding that section 41(1) is applicable to the refunded litre fee. Consequently, it was unnecessary to answer the second question regarding the applicability of the Guruswamy judgment. The reference was answered accordingly.
|
