1997 (2) TMI 27 - HC - Income Tax

High Court upholds excise duty rebate, disallows guest house expenses, allows gratuity provision deduction, excludes Molasses Storage Fund.

The High Court ruled in favor of the Department regarding the rebate on excise duty, stating that the original order granting the rebate remained valid. ... Income, Sugar Industry, Molasses, Incentive Rebate, Business Expenditure, Gratuity Issues Involved:1. Rebate on excise duty2. Guest house expenses as an allowable deduction3. Deduction for provision for gratuity4. Money kept apart for molasses storage fundDetailed Analysis:1. Rebate on Excise Duty:The first issue involves whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing the assessee's claim for Rs. 21,46,400 credited to the profit and loss account as a rebate on excise duty payable for the assessment year 1975-76. The assessee received an incentive rebate from the Central excise authorities, which was subsequently withdrawn. The Tribunal held that the rebate should be excluded from the computation of total income. However, the High Court found that since the subsequent order withdrawing the rebate was set aside by the court, the original order granting the rebate remained in force. Therefore, the amount was rightly shown as income, and the Tribunal's view was not sustainable. The first question was answered in the negative and in favor of the Department.2. Guest House Expenses as an Allowable Deduction:The second issue is whether the guest house expenses described as entertainment expenditure should be allowed as a deduction. The Supreme Court in CIT v. Patel Bros. and Co. Ltd. held that 'entertainment expenditure' must be construed strictly. The High Court applied this principle and concluded that the expenditure in question could not be treated as entertainment expenditure. Therefore, the second question was answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue.3. Deduction for Provision for Gratuity:The third issue concerns whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 8,46,400 representing the provision for gratuity. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the provision due to the absence of approval for the gratuity fund. However, the Appellate Tribunal found that all conditions under section 40A(7)(b)(ii) were satisfied, including the approval of the Commissioner. The High Court upheld this finding, stating that the provision was based on actuarial liability and all conditions were met. Consequently, the third question was answered in the affirmative and against the Department.4. Money Kept Apart for Molasses Storage Fund:The fourth issue involves whether the sum of Rs. 34,006 kept apart for creating storage facilities under the Molasses Control (Amendment) Order, 1962, should be included in the assessee's total income. The High Court, following its earlier decision in CIT v. Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., held that the amount kept apart could not be included in the total income. Therefore, the fourth question was answered in the affirmative and against the Department.Conclusion:The High Court answered the first question in the negative and in favor of the Department, while the second, third, and fourth questions were answered in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs were awarded.