9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 1146 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 37 - interest paid on delayed payment of additional Customs Duty paid, considering the same as in nature of penalty - assessee in its submissions mainly contended that the interest paid was not penal in nature but was compensation for delay in payment of taxes and hence the same is allowable as revenue expenditure u/s 37 - HELD THAT - As relying on Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Company Ltd. 1980 (4) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT , Lachmandas Mathuradas 1997 (12) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd. 1991 (3) TMI 30 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT since interest is paid on delayed payment of custom duty, which calculated at certain percentage and on time basis is nothing but compensation for delay in payment of taxes and accordingly compensatory in nature. The interest expenses are incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and the same is neither personal in nature nor capital in nature and therefore cannot be treated at par with the penalty at any point of time. The Interest due to delayed payment of custom duty is deductible u/s 37 of the Act as it is an accretion to the main payment and not a penalty and accordingly allowable as deduction. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the interest paid on delayed payment of additional customs duty is in the nature of penalty and therefore disallowable under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Interpretation of relevant case laws and their applicability to the current case. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Nature of Interest on Delayed Payment of Additional Customs Duty: The primary issue revolves around whether the interest paid on delayed payment of additional customs duty should be considered as a penalty, and thus disallowable under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that the interest was compensatory in nature and not penal, hence allowable as a revenue expenditure under Section 37. The assessee relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs CIT and Lachmandas Mathuradas Vs CIT, which held that interest on delayed payments was compensatory and not penal. The Revenue, however, contended that the interest was a result of misclassification and suppression of facts by the assessee, thus falling within the ambit of disallowance as it was incurred for a purpose prohibited by law. The Revenue relied on various case laws, including PCIT Vs Sushil Gupta and CIT Vs Rane Brake Linings Ltd., to support their stance that such payments are not allowable deductions. 2. Interpretation and Applicability of Case Laws: The Tribunal analyzed the applicability of various case laws cited by both parties. It noted that the decisions relied upon by the Revenue were distinguishable from the present case. In cases like CIT Vs Jayaram Metal Industries and Swadeshi Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs CIT, the issues involved penalties or fines for violations of law, which were not comparable to the interest on delayed payment of customs duty in the present case. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between interest and penalty, noting that interest is compensatory for the delay in payment of taxes, whereas penalties are punitive for violations of law. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., which clarified that interest on arrears is compensatory and thus deductible under Section 37. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the interest paid by the assessee on delayed payment of additional customs duty was compensatory in nature and not a penalty. Therefore, it was allowable as a deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, emphasizing that interest and penalty are distinct and should not be conflated. The decision was pronounced in open court on 15th October 2024, allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee.
|
