1978 (9) TMI 32 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the assessee is entitled to a weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income Tax Act for the amount waived by the agent and credited to the sales account.
2. Whether the Tribunal's decision on the deduction under section 35B was justified.
3. Whether the Tribunal correctly applied the law of appropriation in determining the deduction.

Analysis:
The judgment involves two references under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act by the Tribunal, concerning the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. The assessee, a private limited company engaged in the export of sea-food, had an agent in the United States. The agent agreed to act as a commission agent and handle various financial aspects of the business. The dispute arose when the assessee overdrawn on the advances provided by the agent, leading to a waiver of 50% of the amount owed. The assessee claimed exemption under section 35B for the entire commission payable to the agent, while the Income Tax Officer disallowed the deduction, considering the waived amount as a deduction in the commission payable. The Appellate Authority and the Tribunal disagreed on the nature of the transaction, with the Tribunal focusing on the specific debts owed by the assessee to the agent.

The Tribunal found that the agent had incurred certain expenses on behalf of the assessee, creating three types of debts: expenses in freight, storage, advances drawn, and commission payable on sales. The Tribunal applied the law of appropriation to determine which debt category the waived amount should be attributed to. As the assessee had credited the amount to the sales account, the Tribunal considered it as the amount due on sales, entitling the assessee to a deduction of the full amount waived. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals and referred a question of law regarding the deduction under section 35B for the waived amount.

The High Court, in its judgment, criticized the Tribunal for not adequately analyzing the provisions of section 35B and its sub-clauses to determine if the waived amount qualified for a deduction. The Court emphasized the need for a detailed consideration of the section's clauses and sub-clauses to assess the nature of the expenditure incurred by the assessee. The Court found the Tribunal's approach lacking in specificity and directed the references to be sent back for a proper determination in accordance with the law. The Court declined to answer the question referred and highlighted the importance of a thorough examination of the relevant legal provisions in such cases.