9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of interest payable/paid was an allowable deduction?" The dispute relates to the assessment year 1975-76. The background facts, so far as relevant, in a nutshell, are as follows The assessee-company carried on business as printers and publishers. Until September 30, 1972, the business was being carried on by a partnership firm styled Goverdhan Kapoor and Sons. As per the agreement dated October 1, 1972, the business was taken over as a running concern by the assessee-company for a consideration of Rs. 8,31,133. As per paragraph (2) of the agreement, the assessee agreed to take over all the assets of the transferor firm, as per the balance-sheet dated September 30, 1972. The aforesaid firm, as per the agreement dated April ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. Its stand was that the interest liability in question was a revenue liability and the same accrued when the debit notes were received. There was a difference of opinion between the Judicial Member and the Accountant Member on that issue. The former held that the agreement was complete in its terms and the liability of the firm purchasing the machines to pay interest arose, without anything more, merely on commission of default in the stipulated payment of instalments or other amounts. The assessee-company was not a party to the agreement with the suppliers and even otherwise the liability was of capital nature. The Accountant Member, however, held that the assessee was entitled to deduction of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On a reading of the endorsement made by the purchaser, it was construed by the Accountant Member and the Vice-President that the same amounted to confirmation of a discretion and an option with the suppliers to charge or not to charge interest. That being the position, there was no accepted liability to pay such interest and the assessee was not required to provide for such contingencies, in its accounts. The above being the position, the Tribunal's conclusions cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable. Merely because a different view may be available to be taken on the factual position that would not give rise to a question of law. Our answer to the question, therefore, is in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
