9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (11) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on petition, the assessee prayed for stay of collection of the disputed sales tax. This court ordered payment of the disputed tax in monthly instalments of Rs. 1,000 each. As per this direction the assessee paid the disputed tax between February, 1959, and March, 1961, that is, before 1st April, 1961. Ultimately, the High Court by an order dated September 4, 1961, modified the assessment orders by adopting a multiple of seven times on the turnover disclosed in the anamath accounts. The total sales tax on the disputed turnover amounted to Rs. 26,317 and this amount, as already stated, was paid before April 1, 1961. In the ledger of the assessee under the head " Sales tax account " he showed the opening balance as Rs. 26,317.65 and at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e previous year. In that view the Tribunal confirmed the orders of the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. At the instance of the assessee the Tribunal has referred the following question : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction of sales tax amount of Rs. 23,389 in computing the total income for the assessment year 1963-64 ? " The assessee also applied to the Tribunal to send certain documents as annexures to the stated case but the Tribunal refused to send them on the ground that those documents were not produced before it at the time of the hearing of the appeal. In this reference, the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim deduction of an expenditure only if the expenditure had been incurred for earning the income returned in the relevant assessment year. Certainly, the assessee could not claim the sum of Rs. 23,389 as an expenditure incurred for earning the income of the assessment year 1963-64, nor could it be said as having any relation to the income that was earned during the assessment year 1963-64. The assessee could not also claim it on the basis of the payment made in the assessment year 1963-64, as the entire disputed amount was paid prior to April 1, 1961. Therefore, even on the basis of payment the assessee could not claim any deduction in the assessment year 1963-64. The learned counsel strongly relied on the fact that in his accounts he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee had taken proceedings before the superior authorities for getting it reduced or wiped out. With regard to the question as to whether the assessee's failure to debit the liability in its books of account in any way debarred him from claiming the sum as a deduction, the Supreme Court observed that the allowability of the amount depended upon only the provisions of law relating thereto and not on the view which the assessee might take of his rights nor on the existence or absence of entries in the books of account. The fact that in the instant case the assessee had adjusted this amount of sales tax only in the accounting year relevant, to the assessment year 1963-64 is, therefore, neither decisive nor conclusive. We would have co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
