9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the amount of Rs. 2,56,529 could be included in the total income of the assessee u/s 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Summary: Issue 1: Inclusion of Rs. 2,56,529 in Total Income u/s 41(1): The primary question was whether the Tribunal was legally right in holding that the amount of Rs. 2,56,529 could not be included in the total income of the assessee u/s 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee had transferred Rs. 3,45,000 from the suspense account to its capital reserve account, out of which Rs. 2,56,529 represented liabilities for expenses allowed in earlier years. The ITO included this amount in the total income of the assessee by applying s. 41 of the Act. The AAC confirmed the ITO's view. The Tribunal, however, opined that the liabilities for expenses arose for 1948-49 and became barred by limitation. It held that s. 41(1) applies only upon remission or cessation of trading liabilities, and when the liability becomes barred by the law of limitation, there is neither a remission nor a cessation of the liabilities. Thus, the amounts in question could not be taxed under s. 41(1) as the income of the year. The Tribunal's decision was supported by the provisions of s. 41(1), which stipulates that the amount obtained by the assessee in respect of such trading liability by way of remission or cessation thereof shall be deemed to be profits and gains of business or profession. The Tribunal referenced the case of Bhagwat Prasad & Co. v. CIT, which laid down that s. 41 applies if two conditions are met: (1) the amount must have been allowed as a deduction in some earlier year, and (2) during the assessment year in question, the assessee must receive some benefit by way of a cessation or remission of liability. The Revenue argued that the assessee's conduct in transferring the amounts to the capital reserve account and profit and loss appropriation account indicated that the liability had ceased to exist, thus attracting the provisions of s. 41(1). The Revenue cited the case of Indian Motor Transport Co. v. CIT, where similar circumstances led to the amounts being taxed as income. On the other hand, the assessee argued that when a liability becomes barred by the law of limitation, there is neither remission nor cessation of the liability, only the creditor's remedy becomes barred. The assessee referenced the case of Kohinoor Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT, where it was held that there is no "cessation of trading liability" within the meaning of s. 10(2A) (corresponding to s. 41(1)) when wages are unclaimed and their recovery is barred by limitation. The court agreed with the assessee's argument, stating that a unilateral act by the debtor cannot bring about the cessation of liability. Cessation of liability may occur either by operation of law, a contract between the parties, or by discharge of the debt. The court found the reasoning in J. K. Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT persuasive, where it was held that a debtor's unilateral act cannot bring about a cessation of liability. In conclusion, the court held that there was neither a remission nor cessation of the trading liabilities in this case, and thus, the provisions of s. 41(1) of the Act would not be attracted. The question was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, with each party to bear its own costs.
|
