9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (10) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct in holding that it cannot be called that the amount of Rs. 1,33,000 is an unascertained liability during the year ?" The respondent, a public limited company, is an assessee under the Income-tax Act. It is a bulk consumer of electricity. The electricity supply tariff was revised with effect from July 1, 1975. The challenge against the said increase by the assessee was futile. The decision so rendered by the High Court was in August, 1976. We are concerned herein with the assessment year 1977-78 for which the accounting period ended on December 31, 1976. The assessee was directed to pay at the enhanced rate of tariff. Demand notices were served on the assessee by the Board. The High Court had allowed the assessee instalments to clear th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal has referred the above two questions for the decision of this court. We heard counsel. In the statement of the case dated January 29, 1988, in paragraph 6, the Appellate Tribunal has stated that the issue regarding deductibility of interest came tip before the Tribunal for the assessment year 1976-77. In its appellate order dated July 30, 1984, the Appellate Tribunal only followed its order in I.T.A. No. 56(Coch)/1981, dated November 6, 1982, in the case of Travancore Electro-Chemical Industries Ltd., which is annexure-D to the paper book. There, the question was whether the interest paid is penalty and so an expenditure for infraction of law and in that perspective whether it is an allowable deduction. In paragraph 3 of the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee and the reasons for allowing the deduction in those cases are not clear or discernible. The entire reasoning and conclusion are based on fragile foundation and there is only a vague reference to the decision in I.T.A. No. 56/Coch of 1981, dated November 6, 1982. The said decision which is not clear does not lead us anywhere. We do not have a proper finding of the Tribunal. On the facts of the present case, it is unknown as to why and how the payment of interest of Rs. 1,33,000 is not an unascertained liability during the year and is a permissible deduction. That aspect requires cogent materials and finding on that score. It has not been so done in this case. We are not in position to appreciate the rival pleas that are mooted for answ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
