9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of market cess under Section 43B. 2. Deduction of sales-tax provision under Section 43B. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction of Market Cess under Section 43B: The assessee, a registered firm running a rice mill, objected to the addition of Rs. 11,302 sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals). The total cess payable was Rs. 14,560, out of which Rs. 3,258 was claimed as allowable by the assessee, arguing that this payment was due only in the next year and thus Section 43B would not apply. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the entire amount of Rs. 14,560 under Section 43B. Upon appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that Section 43B bars claims for deductions in respect of tax or duty, but the market cess was neither tax nor duty. He accepted the assessee's contention for Rs. 3,258 but maintained that the balance amount of Rs. 11,301 could not be claimed as the assessee had already agreed to be assessed on it. The Tribunal, referencing its decision in ITO v. Sree Dhanalakshmi Rice Co. [1986] 19 ITD 601, clarified that the market cess is neither tax nor duty and does not fall under Section 43B. Therefore, the entire amount of Rs. 14,560 should have been allowed as business expenditure. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee could contest the amount agreed upon if it was based on an erroneous appreciation of law, and thus, the assessee was entitled to the deduction of Rs. 11,300. 2. Deduction of Sales-Tax Provision under Section 43B: The second issue concerned a provision made for sales-tax amounting to Rs. 13,000. The assessee argued that this amount, representing liability for sales made in the last month of the accounting year, was due for payment only by January 15, 1984, and thus Section 43B should not apply as the payment had not yet fallen due within the accounting year. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the disallowance, stating that the prohibition against allowance of provision of tax under the mercantile system of accounting is categorical and clear, and the tax would be allowed only when actually paid. On further appeal, the assessee made three pleas: 1. Section 43B applies only when a tax or duty has already fallen due within the accounting year and remains unpaid. 2. Any tax or duty payable and outstanding after April 1, 1984, would be hit by Section 43B. 3. Section 43B applies only to expenditure or liability claimed after April 1, 1984. The Tribunal noted that the expression "any sum payable" in Section 43B refers to a sum that has already fallen due for payment. Several Tribunal decisions supported this contention. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the overriding effect of Section 43B is on actual payment, irrespective of the method of accounting employed by the assessee. The Tribunal referred to the Gujarat High Court decision in Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. ITO [1986] 162 ITR 240, which emphasized that Section 43B allows deductions only on actual payment of tax or duty. The Tribunal concluded that the expression "payable" should not be narrowly construed and should include amounts not yet fallen due. The Tribunal also considered the Finance Minister's speech and the notes on clauses, which indicated that Section 43B was introduced to curb the practice of claiming deductions for statutory liabilities without making actual payments. The amendment to Section 43B by the Finance Act, 1987, further clarified that payments made on due dates would not be affected by Section 43B. Given the binding precedent of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Srikakollu Subba Rao & Co. v. Union of India [1988] 173 ITR 708, the Tribunal held that Section 43B applies only when both the liability and the statutory payment fall within the accounting year. Since the sales-tax liability was payable after the accounting year, Section 43B did not apply. Separate Judgments: The Judicial Member agreed with the Accountant Member on the market cess issue but disagreed on the sales-tax provision. The Judicial Member argued that Section 43B applies only from April 1, 1984, and should not concern provisions made prior to that date. The Judicial Member also referenced the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in N.T.R. Estate v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 285, which supported applying clarificatory amendments to preceding assessment years to avoid litigation. The Third Member, citing the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in Srikakollu Subba Rao & Co., agreed with the Judicial Member that Section 43B did not apply to the sales-tax provision, as the liability did not statutorily become payable within the accounting year. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal permitting the deduction of the market cess but disallowing the sales-tax provision under Section 43B. The decision was based on the interpretation of statutory provisions and relevant judicial precedents.
|
