2003 (1) TMI 82 - HC - Income Tax

Court upholds assessee's deduction under Income-tax Act, 1961, rejects double deduction risk

Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus National Standard Duncan Limited.

The court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction under section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The dispute revolved around whether the ... 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to rule 41D and rule 45(3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 4,05,744 under section 43B of the Act?' - Section 43B of the Income-tax Act allows deduction on tax payable by the assessee. When the assessee purchases raw materials, it is liable to pay purchase tax on the purchase. An equivalent of this amount is adjusted towards the liability on the sale of the product produced out of the raw materials purchased. This adjustment, by legal fiction, is deemed to be an actual payment of the tax liability. Admittedly, this amount is a tax payable. If it is a tax liability on being set off or adjusted, deemed actual payment by legal fiction, it is deductible under section 43B of the Act. - The reference is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee. Issues:Claim for deduction under section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on Bombay Sales Tax Rules.Analysis:The case involved a dispute over the deduction of a sum under section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer and the appellate authority disallowed the deduction, but the Tribunal allowed it, leading to a reference sought by the Commissioner of Income-tax. The key question was whether the deduction of Rs. 4,05,744 was permissible under section 43B, considering the Bombay Sales Tax Rules. Rule 41D and rule 45(3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules were crucial in determining the entitlement to the deduction. Rule 41D allowed for draw back, set off, or refund of sums in specific circumstances, while rule 45(3) permitted adjustment against tax payable in subsequent periods. The dispute centered on whether the amount in question was deemed paid through adjustment or set off, making it a tax liability deductible under section 43B.The Assessing Officer and the appellate authority argued that the amount could not be deducted as the tax had not been physically paid, despite being collected by the assessee. They contended that the liability was not discharged as the tax was retained by the assessee through set off or adjustment. In contrast, the Tribunal held that the legal fiction of payment through adjustment made the amount a tax liability eligible for deduction under section 43B. The legal representative of the assessee argued that the adjustment constituted a deemed payment, aligning with the purpose of section 43B, citing relevant case law to support the position.The respondent contested that since the amount was not physically paid, section 43B did not apply, and there was a risk of double deduction due to the retention of the tax amount by the assessee. However, the Tribunal's decision to allow the deduction for the assessment year 1985-86 was upheld, and the claim for double deduction was refuted. The court emphasized that the legal fiction of deemed payment through adjustment was consistent with the legislative intent behind section 43B and the relevant Sales Tax Rules, ensuring that the liability was effectively discharged.Ultimately, the court concluded that the adjustment or set off of the tax amount constituted a deemed payment, meeting the criteria for deduction under section 43B. The reference was answered in favor of the assessee, affirming the Tribunal's decision and dismissing the claim for double deduction. The judgment highlighted the importance of legal fictions in tax law and the interplay between different statutory provisions in determining tax liabilities and deductions.