Income Tax Provision on Leave Encashment Unconstitutional; Court Strikes Down Section 43B(f) for Inconsistency with Precedent.

The court held Section 43B(f) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, unconstitutional, deeming it arbitrary and inconsistent with the SC's decision in Bharat Earth Movers. The section, which mandated deductions for leave encashment only upon actual payment, was struck down. The court emphasized that legislative amendments should align with constitutional principles and not merely aim to nullify judicial decisions. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment was stayed for four weeks, permitting an urgent certified copy if requested.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 43B(f) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. The legislative intent and object behind the introduction of Section 43B(f).
3. The applicability of the mercantile system of accounting to leave encashment provisions.
4. The judicial precedents relevant to the interpretation of Section 43B(f).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Section 43B(f):
The primary issue in this case is the constitutionality of Section 43B(f) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant argued that this section is ultra vires as it mandates that deductions for leave encashment can only be claimed in the year of actual payment, which contradicts the mercantile system of accounting. The court held that Section 43B(f) is "arbitrary, unconscionable, and de hors the apex court decision in the case of Bharat Earth Movers [2000] 245 ITR 428." Consequently, the court struck down Section 43B(f).

2. Legislative Intent and Object Behind Section 43B(f):
The appellant contended that the introduction of Section 43B(f) was unreasonable and not aligned with the original intent of Section 43B, which was to prevent the evasion of statutory liabilities. The court noted that the original Section 43B was enacted to curb the practice of claiming deductions for unpaid statutory liabilities. However, leave encashment is neither a statutory nor a contingent liability but a trading liability. The court found no disclosed reasons for the amendment that would justify its consistency with the original provision's intent.

3. Applicability of Mercantile System of Accounting:
The appellant maintained that under the mercantile system of accounting, they were entitled to claim deductions for leave encashment provisions made in the balance sheet annually. The court agreed with this view, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Bharat Earth Movers, which allowed deductions for provisions made for leave encashment in the year the liability was incurred, even if the payment was to be made in the future. The court emphasized that the liability for leave encashment is not contingent but a present liability, which can be quantified reasonably.

4. Judicial Precedents:
The court discussed several judicial precedents, including:
- Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC): This case established that estimated expenditures should be considered for tax deductions to arrive at the actual profit.
- Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC): The Supreme Court ruled that a business liability incurred in an accounting year should be deductible in that year, even if the payment is made later. This case was pivotal in the court's decision to strike down Section 43B(f).
- G. C. Kanungo v. State of Orissa [1995] 5 SCC 96: This case highlighted that legislative amendments should not encroach upon judicial powers.
- Federation of Railway Officers Association v. Union of India [2003] 4 SCC 289: The court noted the limited scope of judicial review in policy matters unless the policy is arbitrary or inconsistent with the Constitution.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that Section 43B(f) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is unconstitutional as it is arbitrary and inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Bharat Earth Movers. The appeal was allowed, and Section 43B(f) was struck down. The court emphasized that legislative amendments must disclose reasons consistent with the Constitution and should not aim solely to nullify judicial decisions. The judgment was stayed for four weeks, and an urgent xerox certified copy was permitted if applied for.

---