1978 (1) TMI 65 - HC - Income Tax

Issues Involved:

1. Deductibility of provision for staff and labor bonus.
2. Applicability of the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Swadeshi Cotton and Flour Mills P. Ltd.
3. Distinguishing between "reserve" and "provision."
4. Determination of enforceable liability in mercantile accounting.
5. Consideration of past practice and resolutions for bonus provision.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deductibility of Provision for Staff and Labor Bonus:

The primary issue was whether the sum of Rs. 37,835 included as a provision for staff and labor bonus for the year 1960 was deductible in computing profits for the assessment year 1961-62. The Income-tax Officer initially disallowed the claim as the provision was not made pursuant to any agreement or award during the year. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Swadeshi Cotton and Flour Mills P. Ltd. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal disagreed, stating that the bonus was an existing liability and should be allowed as a deduction.

2. Applicability of the Supreme Court Decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Swadeshi Cotton and Flour Mills P. Ltd.:

The Supreme Court decision in Swadeshi Cotton and Flour Mills P. Ltd. was central to the arguments. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the liability for bonus could only be attributed to the year in which it was settled by an award or agreement. The Tribunal, however, distinguished the present case from Swadeshi Cotton, noting that the facts were different and the bonus was an existing liability for the current year.

3. Distinguishing Between "Reserve" and "Provision":

The Supreme Court in Metal Box Company of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen explained the concepts of "reserve" and "provision." An estimated liability for bonus, even if contingent, could be deductible if ascertainable with fair accuracy. This principle was used to argue that the provision for bonus should be considered in arriving at true profits and gains under the Income-tax Act.

4. Determination of Enforceable Liability in Mercantile Accounting:

The Allahabad High Court in New Victoria Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax emphasized that for an entry in mercantile accounting, the liability must be enforceable, ascertained, and capable of being enforced. Similarly, in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Somasundaram Mills (P.) Ltd., the Madras High Court held that a provision not made pursuant to an award or settlement was not deductible.

5. Consideration of Past Practice and Resolutions for Bonus Provision:

The Tribunal's decision lacked findings on whether the bonus provision was based on past practice, an understanding between the assessee and workmen, or a resolution by the directors or shareholders. The Calcutta High Court in Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax held that a liability to pay bonus, if based on regular practice or a lawful resolution, could be considered an admitted liability and deductible.

Conclusion:

The High Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to ascertain whether the bonus provision was based on regular practice, a lawful resolution, or an amicable settlement. The Tribunal was instructed to take fresh evidence, hear the parties, and decide the matter in accordance with law. There was no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →