TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1079X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lier years discharged subsequently can be allowed to be deducted is a question which would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case and the statutory provisions - the payment was made after adjudication and not during the relevant year - even before introduction of Section 43B, it could not have been said that in all cases the assessee, maintaining books of accounts in a mercantile system, could not be permitted to deduct the amount paid in respect of liability which was incurred in the earlier years Decided in favour of Assessee. - ITA No. 183 of 2003 - - - Dated:- 3-2-2014 - Girish Chandra Gupta And Tapash Mookherjee, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. J P Khaitan, Sr.Adv with Ms. Nilanjaja Banerjee, Adv For the Responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the assessee has come up in appeal. Mr. Khaitan, ld. senior advocate, appearing for the assessee appellant submitted that it would appear even from the order of the Assessing Officer that he referred to the adjudicatory orders in respect of the show cause cum demand notices dated 10th October, 1977, 29th September, 1980 and 5th November, 1980 passed on 12th February, 1982. He submitted that the aforesaid three several demands were disputed by the assessee and the matter was set at rest by the order of adjudication passed on 12th February, 1982. The assessee had an option to prefer an appeal within three months. The assessee, however, was advised not to contest the matter any further. The money as s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rror of law in disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee. Mr. Nizamuddin, learned Advocate appearing for the Revenue submitted that the Division Bench judgment cited by Mr. Khaitan does not really help the assessee appellant because Their Lordships in that judgment expressed (at Page-15) their agreement with the view of the Madras High Court and the Kerala High Court. He referred to the judgment in the case of L.J. Patel Co. Vs. CIT, reported in 97 ITR 152 wherein Kerala High Court has opined as follows: Apart from any reference to any decision, by merely reading Section 13 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, and Section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, one would have thought that the income chargeable under the head Prof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tes appearing for the parties. It would appear that the judgment in the case of L.J. Patel Co. is distinguishable on facts. In that case, excise duty was enhanced by the Finance Act, 1951. Following such enhancement, the assessee was required to pay a sum of Rs.31,675/- as additional excise duty which the assessee did not pay. The assessee challenged the same on various grounds, but did not ultimately succeed. Whereas in the case before us, it was not disputed, that the claim was made on the basis of a valuation which was disputed by the assessee. Therefore, it was a factual dispute which needed adjudication. Once the claim was adjudicated, the assessee had the option to prefer an appeal, but before the time to prefer an appeal ran out th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
