9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Deductibility of penalty for non-completion of work as business expenditure Analysis: The judgment pertains to the deductibility of a penalty imposed on the assessee for non-completion of work within the stipulated time as a business expenditure. Initially, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) disallowed the deduction of Rs. 30,800, the penalty amount, from the net profit of the assessee's construction business. However, the Tribunal allowed the deduction based on the mercantile system of accounting followed by the assessee, which recognized the liability that had accrued due to the delay in completing the work. The Tribunal referred to the contract conditions and the fact that the penalty was essentially a form of compensation payable to the Military Engineering Services (M.E.S.) for the contractor's failure to complete the work on time. The Tribunal considered the liability as deductible business expenditure, leading to the revenue challenging this decision. The key question was whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the deduction of the penalty amount in the assessment year 1967-68. During the hearing, the revenue contended that the penalty was not incidental to the business and that no liability had accrued merely due to the issuance of a notice for penalty. On the other hand, the assessee argued that the liability was recognized in the accounts for the assessment year, following the mercantile system of accounting. The court noted that the liability had been accepted by the assessee, provisioned for in the profit and loss account, and had accrued due to the delay in contract completion. The court cited a Supreme Court decision to support the concept that under the mercantile system of accounting, a business liability that has accrued should be allowed as a deduction, even if it will be discharged at a future date. The court rejected the revenue's argument that the failure to complete the contract terms was not incidental to the business of construction contractors, emphasizing that delays in such contracts are common and do not necessarily imply deliberate breach or fraud. The court further distinguished the penalty in question as compensation payable to the Government for delay in performance, rather than a penalty arising from a breach of statutory provisions. The nature of the liability was deemed different from a statutory penalty, supporting the Tribunal's decision to allow the deduction. Drawing parallels to a previous court decision regarding trading losses, the court found that the penalty amount was incidental to the business activities of the assessee, making it a permissible deduction. Therefore, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee and allowing the deduction of Rs. 30,800 as a business expenditure for the assessment year 1967-68. The assessee was awarded costs for the reference.
|
