Deduction for Income Tax Liability of Dissolved Firm Disallowed as Capital Expenditure

INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER. Versus HIMSON TEXTILE ENGG. INDS. P. LTD.

INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER. Versus HIMSON TEXTILE ENGG. INDS. P. LTD. - TTJ 042, 046, Issues:
Deduction of income-tax liability of predecessor firm in computation of taxable income.

Analysis:
The appeal raised the question of whether the deduction claimed by the assessee for income-tax liability of an erstwhile partnership firm should be allowed in the computation of taxable income. The partnership firm, in this case, was dissolved, and the assessee company, one of the partners, took over all assets and liabilities. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction based on the argument that the tax liabilities belonged to the predecessor firm, not the appellant company, citing the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. T.V.K. Koteshwararao. The Revenue contended that the payment of income-tax liability is not deductible under section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act, as it is a personal liability and not a business expenditure. The Revenue relied on the judgment in CIT vs. Datta Tin Works to support this contention.

The assessee, on the other hand, supported the CIT(A)'s decision and cited judgments from the Supreme Court and High Courts to bolster their argument. The Tribunal analyzed the various judgments and highlighted the distinction between bad debts and income-tax liability. The Tribunal noted that while bad debts are specifically allowable under section 36(2) of the IT Act, income-tax liability falls under the category of amounts not deductible for computing business income, as per section 40(a)(ii). The Tribunal concluded that the Supreme Court judgment cited by the assessee did not support their contention regarding the deduction of income-tax liability.

The Tribunal further discussed the legal principles regarding partnership firms and the liability of partners for tax payments. Referring to section 189 of the IT Act, the Tribunal emphasized that partners are jointly and severally liable for tax payable by the firm. The Tribunal distinguished the judgments cited by the assessee from the present case, highlighting the difference in circumstances where assets and liabilities were taken over by partners upon dissolution of the firm. The Tribunal concluded that the payment of income-tax liability by the assessee cannot be allowed as a deduction in computing taxable income, as it should be considered capital expenditure for acquiring the business of the erstwhile firm.

In light of the above discussions, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction and directed the ITO to disallow the claimed amount while computing the taxable income of the assessee. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was allowed.