9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income - 119 of 1987 - - - Dated:- 13-9-2007 - MADAN B. LOKUR and DR. S. MURALIDHAR JJ. Santosh K. Aggarwal for the assessee. Mrs. P. L. Bansal for the Commissioner. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by Madan B. Lokur J.- In this reference relevant to the assessment year 1980-81, the following three questions of law have been referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal") for our opinion : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that for disallowance under section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : (a) Taxable part of the house rent allowance paid to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned unanswered in respect of these two questions. 3. In so far as the third question is concerned, we find from a reading of the paper book, that the assessee had written back in its accounts unclaimed balances under the following heads : (a) Cheques issued in regard to wages lying unclaimed Rs. 16,313 (b) Sundry credit balance 99,927 Total 1,16,240 4. These amounts, it will be seen, are not statutory liabilities but contractual liabilities. These amounts were unilaterally written off by the assessee and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) (who was the Assessing Officer) added back this amount to the income of the assessee. The view expressed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The decision in T. V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd.'s case [1996] 222 ITR 344 was rendered by three learned judges of the Supreme Court and it pertained to a contractual liability. This decision, however, does not appear to have been noticed by the Bench of two learned judges while deciding CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works P. Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 518. 8. In Chief CIT v. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 434 (SC), which was relied upon by learned counsel for the assessee, both the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court were considered. The decision in the case of CIT v. T. V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. [1996] 222 ITR 344 was distinguished by the Supreme Court as not being relevant to the facts of the case on hand while the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bdul Ahad Najar [2001] 248 ITR 744 (J K) where again CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works P. Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 518 (SC) and T. V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd.'s case [1996] 222 ITR 344 were considered. In this decision, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that there is no conflict between the aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court. 11. In so far as the decision rendered by this court in J. L. Gupta's case [2005] 144 Taxman 692 is concerned, it made no reference either to T. V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd.'s case [1996] 222 ITR 344 (SC) or to Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. case [2002] 254 ITR 434 (SC). In fact, there is no discussion on the facts of the case in J. L. Gupta [2005] 144 Taxman 692 and we have doubts whether it can be said to have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
