2002 (11) TMI 252 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal allows appeal, confirms cess deduction under Income-tax Act

Duncans Industries Ltd. Versus Joint Commissioner Of Income-tax.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT's order under section 263. It confirmed that the cess paid under the specified West Bengal Acts is ... Business Expenditure Issues Involved:1. Deductibility of cess paid under the West Bengal Rural Employment Production Act, 1976, and the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973.2. Application of Rule 8 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.3. The power of the Commissioner under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.4. Interpretation of the term 'for the purposes of business' under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.5. Applicability of section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.6. Relevance of judicial precedents and CBDT circulars in determining the deductibility of cess.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deductibility of Cess:The primary issue was whether the cess paid under the West Bengal Rural Employment Production Act, 1976, and the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973, is an allowable deduction in computing business income. The Tribunal held that cess is incidental and ancillary to the business of tea growing and manufacturing. It does not create any asset or advantage of an enduring nature but enables the assessee to carry on its business efficiently, making it a permissible revenue expenditure. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. and Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. CIT, which allowed such deductions.2. Application of Rule 8:Rule 8 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, was central to the computation of income derived from the sale of tea grown and manufactured by the seller in India. The Tribunal confirmed that the entire income from tea grown and manufactured should first be determined as business income. Then, 40% of this income is deemed taxable under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the remaining 60% is considered agricultural income for state tax purposes. This apportionment is mandated by Rule 8 and upheld by the Supreme Court in Tata Tea Ltd. and Assam Co. Ltd.3. Power of the Commissioner under Section 263:The Tribunal examined whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) had the authority to revise the assessment order under section 263. It was noted that the CIT's power is limited to revising orders that are erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT, which stated that if two views are possible, and the Assessing Officer (AO) has taken one view, the order cannot be considered erroneous or prejudicial. Since the AO's view on the deductibility of cess was supported by judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that the CIT's invocation of section 263 was not justified.4. Interpretation of 'for the purposes of business':The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation in Malayalam Plantations Ltd., which clarified that the expression 'for the purpose of the business' is broader than 'for the purpose of earning profit'. It includes statutory dues and taxes necessary for carrying on the business. The cess paid by the assessee was deemed to fall within this broader interpretation, making it an allowable deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.5. Applicability of Section 43B:Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, allows deductions for tax, duty, cess, or fee only in the year of payment. The Tribunal noted that this section implicitly recognizes the deductibility of cess in computing business income. Hence, the cess paid by the assessee was deductible in the year it was paid, aligning with the provisions of section 43B.6. Relevance of Judicial Precedents and CBDT Circulars:The Tribunal considered various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decisions in Jaipuria Samla Amalgamated Collieries Ltd. and Warren Tea Ltd., which supported the deductibility of cess. Additionally, the CBDT Circular No. 91/158/66-ITJ(19) clarified that the omission of the word 'cess' from section 40(a)(ii) means that cess is not disallowed. The Tribunal concluded that these precedents and the CBDT circular collectively supported the assessee's claim for deduction of cess.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT's order under section 263. It confirmed that the cess paid under the specified West Bengal Acts is an allowable deduction in computing business income and should be accounted for before apportioning the income under Rule 8. The Tribunal's decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the Income-tax Act, judicial precedents, and relevant rules, ensuring that the assessee's deductions were correctly applied and upheld.