TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BADAR DURREZ AHMED, MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Ajay Vohra, Ms Kavita Jha, Mr Somnath Shukla, Mr Vijay Punna. For the Respondent : Mr Deepak Chopra BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. This appeal by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) has been preferred against the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 31.03.2000 in ITA No. 4662/Del/93 which pertains to the assessment year 1989-90. The question of law which we have to answer is as under:- Whether the tribunal was justified in holding the assessee was not entitled to deduction under section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of interest actually paid on additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduce i.e. wood from the Forest Department of Himachal Pradesh Government. As per agreement, the assessee was liable to pay besides the agreed price of the product, Sales Tax, if any payable by the Forest Department in respect of sale of product to the assessee. The Forest Department initially charged Sales Tax at lower rates from the assessee but in the previous year relevant to asst. Year 1984-85, it was asked by the Forest Department to make payment of Rs. 31,82,371/-. The assessee disputed charging of this additional Sales Tax but made payment of an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs during the previous years relevant to asstt. Years 1984-85 and 1985-86. Simultaneously, the assessee challenged the demand in the H.P. High Court. However, the balanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he expression used in the 43B (a) was any sum payable . According to the Tribunal, the interest amount of Rs.10,04,408/-, although it was paid in the year in question, could not be allowed as a deduction as it was not a sum payable . The Tribunal came to the conclusion as indicated in paragraphs 9.3 and 9.4 thereof which read as under:- 9.3 Insofar as the assessee s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 10,04,408/- is concerned, it may be pointed out that in view of the expression any sum payable used in Clause (a) of Sec. 43B, read with its definition contained in Explanation (2), there should exist a legal liability by way of tax, duty etc. However, the assessee in this case has not brought on record any material mention to sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made actual payment of the interest amount, it is not entitled to the grant of deduction for said sum u/s 43B of the I.T. Act. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee, however, pointed out that the moment there was a demand for additional sales tax, if it was not paid within the stipulated time interest became automatically payable on account of the provisions of section 17-A of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968. The said provisions, to the extent relevant, read as under:- 17-A (1) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (2) If the amount of tax or penalty due from a dealer is not paid by him within the period specified in the notice of demand or, if no period is specified within thirty days from the service of such notice, the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that as there was no demand for interest, the interest of Rs. 10,04,408/- was not a sum payable and that the Tribunal s decision in this regard ought not to be interfered with. 7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has rejected the claim of the assessee only on the ground that the amount of interest of Rs. 10,04,408/- did not fall within the expression any sum payable used in Section 43B of the said Act. However, we find that Section 17-A (2) of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968 specifically provides that if the amount of tax or penalty due from a dealer is not paid by him within the period specified in the notice of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
