"Actual Payment" u/s 43B Requires Real Payment, Not Just Bank Guarantee, Says Court; Appeals Dismissed.

The HC upheld the ITAT's decision, concluding that under Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, "actual payment" requires real payment to the government, not merely furnishing a bank guarantee. Consequently, the disallowance of the excise duty liabilities for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 was justified, and the appeals were dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Disallowance of excise duty liabilities under Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether furnishing a bank guarantee amounts to "actual payment" under Section 43B.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Excise Duty Liabilities under Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961:

The core issue in these appeals revolves around the disallowance of excise duty liabilities amounting to Rs. 58,75,999/- for the assessment year 1986-87 and Rs. 44,58,378/- for the assessment year 1987-88. The disallowance was made by invoking Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a processing house engaged in dyeing and printing of cloth, collected excise duty from merchants, which was credited to a separate excise account. The dispute arose over whether the excise duty collected, but not paid to the government, could be deducted under Section 43B. The original assessments were set aside by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat, directing fresh assessments considering the applicability of Section 43B. The Assessing Officer added the excise duty liabilities to the income, as they were not paid to the government, thereby invoking Section 43B, which allows deductions only on actual payment.

2. Whether Furnishing a Bank Guarantee Amounts to "Actual Payment" under Section 43B:

The substantial question of law framed was whether the bank guarantee furnished by the assessee, backed by fixed deposits, could be considered as "actual payment" under Section 43B. The assessee argued that the bank guarantee, which divested them of funds, should be treated as actual payment, especially since it was furnished under the Supreme Court's directions. On the contrary, the Revenue contended that furnishing a bank guarantee does not equate to actual payment, as Section 43B mandates actual payment to the government's coffers.

The Tribunal held that furnishing a bank guarantee is merely a security for potential payment and not actual payment of excise duty. The Tribunal noted that the interest income from the fixed deposits continued to belong to the assessee, indicating that ownership of the funds had not transferred to the government. The Tribunal emphasized that actual payment occurs only when the funds reach the government's coffers and are available for public purposes.

The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. v. Asst. Collector of Central Excise, which clarified that a bank guarantee is not equivalent to payment of excise duty. The Constitution Bench in Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. v. State of U.P. further affirmed that furnishing a bank guarantee does not amount to actual payment.

Conclusion:

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's view, stating that the plain meaning of "actually paid" in Section 43B means real payment to the government, not constructive or speculative. The court concluded that furnishing a bank guarantee does not amount to actual payment of excise duty under Section 43B. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed, affirming that the disallowance of excise duty liabilities under Section 43B was justified. The court emphasized that the purpose of Section 43B is to ensure that government dues are paid in cash and available for public expenditure, and furnishing a bank guarantee does not fulfill this requirement.

---