1973 (3) TMI 26 - HC - Income Tax

Whether arrears of additional ground rent and premium and interest thereon for period prior to the date of revised lease agreement are allowable - Whether the provision in lease for taking possession if amounts are not paid amounts to a capital charge

Issues Involved:

1. Allowability of deductions against property income.
2. Allowability of deductions against business income.
3. Interest on additional premium as a deductible expense under section 9(1)(iv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
4. Admissibility of a claim under section 10(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allowability of Deductions Against Property Income:

The court examined whether the following amounts were allowable as deductions against the property income for the assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63:
- Enhanced ground rent for the period 20-2-1957 to 31-12-1959.
- Interest on enhanced ground rent.
- Interest on enhanced premium.

The court noted that the enhanced ground rent for the calendar year 1960 had been allowed as a deduction, but the claim for earlier ground rent was disallowed. The court referenced the Bombay High Court decision in *Commissioner of Income-tax v. Abdul Hussein Essaji Arsiwalla*, which held that arrears of ground rent made payable by a subsequent agreement should be allowed as and when paid. However, the court concluded that the allowances mentioned in section 9 of the Act are of various types, some dependent on actual payments and some hypothetical in nature. Therefore, the enhanced ground rent and interest on enhanced ground rent for earlier years could not be carried forward and allowed in subsequent years. The court answered this question in the negative, against the assessee and in favor of the department.

2. Allowability of Deductions Against Business Income:

The court examined whether the following amounts were allowable as deductions against the business income for the assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63:
- Enhanced ground rent for the period 20-2-1957 to 31-12-1960.
- Interest on enhanced ground rent.
- Interest on enhanced premium.

The court noted that the agreement giving rise to the payments was executed on 5th December 1962, and thus, the liability did not arise during the accounting years in question. The court referenced *Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax*, which held that the absence of entries did not debar the claim to a deduction if the liability had accrued. However, in this case, the liability was determined only in December 1962. Therefore, the amounts in question were not admissible deductions in the assessment years in question. The court answered this question in the negative, against the assessee and in favor of the department.

3. Interest on Additional Premium as a Deductible Expense:

The court examined whether the interest on additional premium of Rs. 2,53,125 at 6% per annum was allowable under section 9(1)(iv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Tribunal had allowed this deduction, considering it a capital charge on the property. The court analyzed the terms of the lease agreement and concluded that the enhanced premium was a capital charge as the property was available to the holder of the charge for the realization of its claim. Therefore, the interest on the enhanced premium was allowable under section 9(1)(iv). The court answered this question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the department.

4. Admissibility of a Claim Under Section 10(1):

The court examined whether the claim of Rs. 4,319, deducted by the Defence Ministry from the assessee's bills, was admissible under section 10(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Tribunal had allowed this deduction. The court noted that the assessee kept its accounts on the mercantile system, and the amount was debited in the year of account in question. There was no evidence to show that any Government paper was retained by the assessee. Therefore, the amount was an allowable debit entry in the accounts of the assessee. The court answered this question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the department.

Conclusion:

The court answered the questions referred at the instance of the assessee-company against the assessee and in favor of the department. The questions referred at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax were answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the department. The parties were left to bear their own costs.

← Previous Next →