9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confirmation of addition of excess sales-tax collected for the assessment year 1976-77. 2. Determination of accounting system followed by the assessee for sales-tax collections. 3. Application of the mercantile system of accounting for sales-tax liability deduction. 4. Interpretation of relevant legal precedents in the context of the case. Analysis: 1. The appeal raised the issue of confirming the addition of Rs. 12,177 as excess sales-tax collected for the assessment year 1976-77. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) added this amount as trading receipts since the sales-tax and surcharge collected but not paid before the end of the previous year. The CIT (A) upheld this addition based on the methodology adopted by the assessee in accounting for sales-tax collections and payments. The appeal challenged this decision before the Appellate Tribunal. 2. The crucial issue revolved around determining the accounting system followed by the assessee for sales-tax collections. The CIT (A) observed that while the assessee used the mercantile system for other transactions, a cash system was employed for sales-tax collections. The assessee contended that it consistently followed the mercantile system for all transactions, including sales-tax collections. The Tribunal analyzed the methodology adopted by the assessee and found no evidence supporting the CIT (A)'s conclusion that a cash system was used for sales-tax accounting. 3. The Tribunal delved into the application of the mercantile system of accounting for sales-tax liability deduction. It emphasized that the liability towards sales-tax arises when the taxable event, i.e., the sale, occurs, even if the payment is made later. The Tribunal highlighted instances where the assessee accounted for sales-tax liability in the balance sheet under "sundry creditors," indicating adherence to the mercantile system. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was entitled to deduct the sales-tax liability that arose during the year. 4. The Tribunal interpreted relevant legal precedents to support its decision. It distinguished the case of E.A. E.T. Sunderaraj vs. CIT, where a cash system of accounting was established, from the present case where the assessee consistently followed the mercantile system for sales-tax accounting. By aligning with the mercantile system principle and the Supreme Court's ruling, the Tribunal overturned the addition of Rs. 12,177, emphasizing the consistent application of the mercantile system by the assessee for all transactions. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the addition of Rs. 12,177, as it determined that the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting for sales-tax collections, entitling them to deduct the sales-tax liability that arose during the year.
|
