9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E AKIL KURESHI) Revenue is in Appeal against the judgment of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal raising following questions for our consideration: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing deduction of ₹ 3,71,42,093/- under section 43B on account of adjustment of refund from Central Excise and Customs without interpreting the provisions of section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in its true spirit ? 2. Whether, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of the assessee under section 43B of the Income-tax Act as the assessee failed to treat the demand of Central Excise and Customs as actual liability in its books of account and whether by just putting a not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extent of ₹ 3.71 crore. We note that the order passed by the CIT(A) had taken into consideration all the issues raised concerning the all the material aspects of the case and clear cut finding was given that assessee was entitled to the said deduction under section 43B of the Act on the payment basis and further held that the demand raised was not on account of penalty as claimed by the A.O. But was a routine demand. We are in full agreement with CIT(A) on this point. The assessee has also given note in the notes to accounts to the annual account mentioning the facts qua the said demand raised by the Excise Department and adjustment of refund of ₹ 3.71 crore against that demand though not accounted for in the books of accounts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ords, the provision of section 43B overrides the method of accounting consistently followed and provides for the deduction of statutory liabilities in the year of payment irrespective of the year in which the liability is incurred. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the various decisions discussed above and by respectfully following these decisions, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue on this point. 4. As noted, the facts are simple. Department had adjusted the refund claim of the assessee of ₹ 3.71 crores towards its excise duty liability. That being the position, it cannot be said that excise duty of ₹ 3.71 crores was not actually paid over. The claim would not be hit by section 43B of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
