1983 (11) TMI 88 - AT - Income Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Provision for additional customs duty of Rs. 55,70,000.
2. Addition of Rs. 35,81,189 due to undervaluation of work-in-progress.
3. Filing fee of Rs. 66,920 paid to the Registrar of Companies.
4. Gratuity liability of Rs. 13,13,169 for the year.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Provision for Additional Customs Duty of Rs. 55,70,000:
The assessee claimed a deduction for a provision of Rs. 55,70,000 made for additional customs duty, arguing that the liability accrued when the value of imported spare parts exceeded 10% of the total value of machinery imports. The ITO disallowed the deduction, stating that no demand was raised by customs authorities, and thus, the liability had not crystallized. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the deduction, referencing the Supreme Court decision in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT, which held that a liability could be deducted when it accrued, even if not yet quantified.

The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner (Appeals), emphasizing that under Section 143 of the Customs Act, liability arises only when the final demand is raised after provisional assessment. The Tribunal noted that the bond executed by the assessee under Section 143 meant that the additional duty liability would only crystallize upon final assessment. Thus, the Tribunal reversed the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, disallowing the deduction for the provision of Rs. 55,70,000.

2. Addition of Rs. 35,81,189 Due to Undervaluation of Work-in-Progress:
The assessee changed its method of valuing work-in-progress from material cost plus direct wages to material cost only, resulting in a reduction of profits by Rs. 35,81,189. The ITO added this amount back, stating that the change was not justified and did not reflect the true profits. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the new method, considering it a recognized accounting practice.

The Tribunal reviewed various accounting principles and concluded that the correct method for valuing work-in-progress includes both material cost and direct wages. The Tribunal found the change in valuation method unjustified and not bona fide. Consequently, it reversed the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and restored the addition of Rs. 35,81,189.

3. Filing Fee of Rs. 66,920 Paid to the Registrar of Companies:
The assessee paid Rs. 66,920 as filing fees for increasing its authorized capital and claimed it as revenue expenditure. The ITO treated it as capital expenditure. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed it as revenue expenditure, referencing a Bombay High Court decision that treated similar expenses for issuing bonus shares as revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, distinguishing the case from other precedents where the increase in capital was for issuing fresh shares. Since the increase in authorized capital was for issuing bonus shares, the Tribunal considered the filing fee as revenue expenditure and allowed the deduction.

4. Gratuity Liability of Rs. 13,13,169 for the Year:
The assessee claimed a provision of Rs. 31,48,082 for gratuity based on actuarial valuation, but only Rs. 19,07,643 was allowed as deduction. The Commissioner (Appeals) admitted an additional ground for the remaining Rs. 13,13,169, considering it a liability for the year under Section 40A(7)(b)(i) of the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals), noting that the provision was for the gratuity liability of the year and was meant for payment to an approved gratuity fund. The Tribunal upheld the deduction of Rs. 13,13,169, recognizing it as a legitimate provision for the gratuity liability of the year.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision involved disallowing the provision for additional customs duty and the change in valuation method for work-in-progress, while allowing the filing fee for issuing bonus shares as revenue expenditure and the provision for gratuity liability as a deductible expense.

← Previous Next →