9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (1) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come-tax (Appeals) that the Income-tax Officer ought not to have included in its income the amounts collected by the petitioner by way of sales tax and disallowed the amount payable to the sales tax authorities by the petitioner. At that time, the Commissioner of Income-tax followed the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Srikakollu Subba Rao v. Union of India [1988] 173 ITR 708 and held that, as there was no contrary decision of the Delhi High Court, he was bound by the observations of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and he directed that the amount of sales tax which was payable though not actually paid should be allowed as a deduction under section 43B. After this order was passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax in appeal, the In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agree with the same. What has weighed with the Patna High Court is (p. 74) : "On the face of section 43 B of the Act, the same appears to be harsh and manifestly unjust. In this situation, it would be permissible and necessary to consider the object of insertion of section 43B of the Act as stated by the finance Minister in his Budget Speech which is as follows : . . . " In our opinion, merely because a provision of the Act is harsh, and we dare say that all provisions which levy tax are harsh, this is no ground for discarding one of the cardinal principles of interpretation of statutes which is that if the language is clear and unambiguous, then resort cannot be had to the aims and objects or to the Minister's speech with a view to in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... then section 43B does not apply. It is precisely in order to plug this loophole that Explanation 2 was inserted with retrospective effect. Merely because Explanation 2 plugs a loophole and brings the case of the petitioner within the ambit of section 43B cannot be a reason for us to hold that Explanation 2 is ultra vires. Parliament has the legislative competence to enact the said provision and it is open to Parliament to see that the loopholes, if any, in a fiscal enactment, are blocked. We do not find this provision as being arbitrary or discriminatory and is not violative of any of the fundamental rights and is not in conflict with any provision of the Constitution. As we have already observed in the case of Sanghi Motors [1991] 187 IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
