2016 (6) TMI 1027 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of payment of luxury tax - CIT (A) deleted the disallowance which was upheld by the learned Tribunal - Held that - Both the CIT(A) and the learned Tribunal were of the opinion that payment of tax made in the relevant assessment year or before the filing of return for the relevant assessment year was deductible under section 43B irrespective of the year in which the liability might have been incurred. Correctness of the aforesaid view has not been questioned in this appeal. We, as such, find no merit in the appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of luxury tax payment by assessing officer
- Appeal by assessee against disallowance
- CIT (A) and Tribunal's decision to delete disallowance
- Formulation of question of law by revenue
- Pending litigation on luxury tax demand before Supreme Court
- Disallowance grounds by assessing officer
- Deductibility of tax payment under section 43B
- Dismissal of appeal by High Court

Disallowance of Luxury Tax Payment by Assessing Officer:
The assessing officer disallowed a sum of ?1,37,03,258/- on account of luxury tax payment, presuming it was towards penalty, and as the liability was related to earlier years. The officer held that the payment was towards penalty, not tax, and disallowed the amount.

Appeal by Assessee Against Disallowance:
The assessee appealed against the disallowance, arguing that the payment was on account of tax, not penalty. The CIT (A) deleted the disallowance, stating that the assessing officer's presumption lacked material evidence. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, emphasizing that the payment was allowable under Section 43B.

Formulation of Question of Law by Revenue:
The revenue appealed against the Tribunal's decision, formulating a question of law regarding the deletion of the disallowance. The question focused on whether the Tribunal erred in law by upholding the deletion without verifying if the payment was towards tax, especially considering the original luxury tax demand included a penalty.

Pending Litigation on Luxury Tax Demand Before Supreme Court:
During the appeal process, the luxury tax demand was subject to pending litigation before the Supreme Court. The assessee indicated that the payment was for the principal amount, not the penalty, and claimed deduction only for the paid sum of ?1,37,03,258/-.

Deductibility of Tax Payment Under Section 43B:
Both the CIT (A) and the Tribunal agreed that tax payment made in the relevant assessment year or before filing the return was deductible under Section 43B, regardless of when the liability was incurred. This view was not challenged in the appeal.

Dismissal of Appeal by High Court:
The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal, finding no merit in it. The Court affirmed the CIT (A) and Tribunal's decision that the tax payment was deductible under Section 43B and that the assessing officer's grounds for disallowance lacked substance. The question formulated by the revenue was answered in the negative and against them.