9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 154 for rectification of the assessment order. 2. Application of Section 43B concerning the deduction of unpaid sales tax. 3. Retrospective applicability of the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 1987 and Finance Act, 1989. 4. Correct amount to be disallowed under Section 43B. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Applicability of Section 154 for Rectification of the Assessment Order The first question to be decided is whether the Income Tax Officer (ITO) was justified in applying the provisions of Section 154. The order under Section 154 falls into two parts. The first part refers to a mistake committed by the ITO in not considering the provisions of Section 43B at all. It is mandatory for the ITO to consider the provisions of Section 43B when there are materials prima facie like outstanding sales-tax. The ITO's oversight in applying these mandatory provisions and considering whether any disallowance is required constitutes a mistake, which the ITO attempted to rectify. This part of the order under Section 154 is upheld, referencing the case India Woollen Textile Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 205 (Punj. & Har.), which held that overlooking a statutory provision can be treated as an error apparent on the record and rectifiable. Issue 2: Application of Section 43B Concerning the Deduction of Unpaid Sales Tax The second part of the order involves giving effect to the provisions of Section 43B. The first issue to be decided here is whether the assessee has claimed any deduction in computing the income from business. The assessee argued that no deduction was claimed. However, it is well settled that the amount collected by the assessee from customers by way of sales-tax is a trading receipt. This trading receipt cannot change its character merely because it is credited to the sales-tax payable account instead of the trading account. Prior to Section 43B, the crediting of the sales-tax receipt to another account made no difference in the ultimate computation of the total income because the assessee could claim an exact equivalent amount as sales-tax liability. However, after the introduction of Section 43B, only actual payments made can be deducted. The reasoning that receipts and payments are credited and debited to another account is immaterial and irrelevant. Issue 3: Retrospective Applicability of the Amendments Introduced by the Finance Act, 1987 and Finance Act, 1989 The Finance Act, 1987 introduced a proviso to Section 43B, clarifying that the provisions would not apply if the sales-tax for the last quarter or month of the accounting year was paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return under Section 139. However, this proviso was applicable only from the assessment year 1988-89. The Finance Act, 1989 introduced an Explanation to Section 43B, making it clear that 'any sum payable' means a sum for which the assessee incurred liability in the previous year, even if it was not statutorily payable within that year. This Explanation was made retrospective from the assessment year 1984-85. The memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill, 1989, clarified that the intention of the Legislature was never to exclude liabilities to sales-tax that had not fallen due for payment before the end of the accounting year. The Explanation was introduced to correct judicial errors and clarify the legislative intent, making it retrospective from 1984-85. Issue 4: Correct Amount to be Disallowed Under Section 43B The assessee argued that the amount to be disallowed should not be Rs. 17,440 but much less. The total collection during the year was Rs. 16,261, and the assessee had actually paid Rs. 7,409. Therefore, the outstanding amount for the year's liability was Rs. 8,852, which should be disallowed for the assessment year 1984-85. Since this amount was actually paid in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1985-86, the assessee would be entitled to a deduction for this amount for the assessment year 1985-86. The ITO was directed to modify both assessments accordingly. Conclusion The appeal is partly allowed. The ITO's rectification under Section 154 is upheld concerning the oversight of Section 43B. The application of Section 43B mandates that only actual payments made can be deducted, and the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 1987 and Finance Act, 1989 clarify this, with the latter being retrospective from 1984-85. The correct amount to be disallowed is Rs. 8,852, not Rs. 17,440, and this adjustment should be reflected in the assessments for the relevant years.
|
