9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 139(1) of the Act and in such cases the amount paid can be claimed as expenditure in the income tax return. Now, going through the facts of the case, we find that the year under appeal is AY 2013-14. The alleged amount pertains to AY 2005-06 and AY 2010-11 and such liability did not exist at that point of time and, therefore, there was no possibility to make the payment during the relevant assessment year or before the due date of filing of return of income for such assessment year. The fact is that the liability of sales tax payment crystallized during the AY 2013-14 post sales tax assessment completion/sales tax proceedings. The assessee made the payment during the year which is not in dispute. Therefore, in our considered view pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce/addition of sales-tax liability of ₹ 12,32,290/- claimed in the A.Y. 2013-14 under appeal without considering that the said liability payable was considered and finalized in the scrutiny assessment made u/s 143(3) of the Act and the Ld. A.O. disallowed the same very liability vide subsequent order u/s 154 of the Act on the basis of change of opinion on the same set of facts, VAT returns and accounts. 2. That the Ld. C.I.T.(A) further erred in not having considered that the disallowance of sales-tax liability claimed in the A.Y. 2013-14 was made by the Ld. A.O. on a change of mind relying on some case laws whereas, on the other hand, the assessee in its defence has cited case law favouring the legitimacy of the claim and that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9,157/- admittedly paid on 26.06.2013 for the dividend declared and paid for the A.Y. 2013-14 has not been allowed despite filing a petition u/s 154 against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14. 6. That, as the order of Ld. C.I.T.(A) on the above issues suffer from illegality and is devoid of any merit, the same should be quashed and your appellant be given such relief(s) as prayed for. 7. That, the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds. 3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for no pressing ground no. 5. Ld. D/R did not oppose. We, therefore, dismiss ground no. 5 as not pressed. 4. Ground nos. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the year under appeal at ₹ 12,32,290/- which comprises of the sales tax liability for AY 2005-06 at ₹ 5,59,386/- and of ₹ 6,72,904/- for AY 2010-11. The assessee has made this claim under the provisions of Section 43B of the Act. 7. Relevant part of Section 43B of the Act reads as under: Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, a deduction otherwise allowable under this Act in respect of- (a) any sum payable by the assessee by way of tax, duty, cess or fee, by whatever name called, under any law for the time being in force, or (b) any sum payable by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution to any provident fund or superannuation fund or gratuity fund or any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to in section 28 of that previous year in which such sum is actually paid by him: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply in relation to any sum which is actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date applicable in his case for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 in respect of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred as aforesaid and the evidence of such payment is furnished by the assessee along with such return. 8. Section 43B of the Act starts with the words Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act . Thus, this is an overriding section and anything contained in other provisions of the Income Tax Act are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10. Now, going through the facts of the case, we find that the year under appeal is AY 2013-14. The alleged amount pertains to AY 2005-06 and AY 2010-11 and such liability did not exist at that point of time and, therefore, there was no possibility to make the payment during the relevant assessment year or before the due date of filing of return of income for such assessment year. The fact is that the liability of sales tax payment of ₹ 12,32,290/- crystallized during the AY 2013-14 post sales tax assessment completion/sales tax proceedings. The assessee made the payment during the year which is not in dispute. Therefore, in our considered view provisions of Section 43B of the Act are squarely applicable on the alleged sum and the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
