2004 (8) TMI 326 - AT - Income Tax

Penalties for Customs Law Breach Not Deductible as Business Expenses

The Tribunal affirmed that the fine and penalty paid by the assessee for breaching customs law were not deductible as business expenses under Section 37 ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the payment of fine and penalty by the assessee is allowable as business expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Fine and Penalty as Business Expenditure:Facts of the Case:The assessee was imposed a fine of Rs. 1,50,000 and a penalty of Rs. 5,000 by the customs authorities for importing oversized heavy melting scrap, which was a violation of the customs law. The assessee claimed these amounts as business expenses under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arguing that they were compensatory in nature.Arguments by the Assessee:The assessee contended that the fine and penalty were compensatory rather than penal, citing the judgments of CIT vs. N.M. Parthasarathy and CIT vs. Ahmedabad Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. The assessee argued that the payments were made to release confiscated goods and were necessary for conducting business.Assessment Officer's (AO) Decision:The AO disallowed the claim, stating that the fine and penalty were penal in nature due to the infraction of customs law. The AO relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Maddi Venkataratnam & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, which held that penalties for infraction of law are not allowable as business expenses.CIT(A) Decision:The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the onus was on the assessee to prove that the fine and penalty were compensatory. The CIT(A) found no evidence to support the assessee's claim that the payments were made in the normal course of business rather than for an infraction of law.Tribunal's Analysis:The Tribunal examined the facts and the legal precedents. It noted that for an expenditure to be allowable under Section 37(1), it must be incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes and not for an infraction of law. The Tribunal found that the fine and penalty were imposed due to the assessee's failure to declare oversized scrap, which constituted an infraction of customs law.Legal Precedents Considered:- Maddi Venkataratnam & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT: The Supreme Court held that expenses incurred for violating the law are not allowable as business expenses.- CIT vs. Ahmedabad Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd.: The Supreme Court allowed expenses that were compensatory and incurred in the normal course of business.- CIT vs. N.M. Parthasarathy: The Madras High Court allowed a fine paid in lieu of confiscation as a business expense, considering it compensatory.Tribunal's Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the fine and penalty were for the infraction of customs law and not incurred in the normal course of business. Therefore, they were not allowable as business expenses under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal distinguished the cases cited by the assessee, noting that the facts were different and not applicable to the present case.Final Judgment:The appeal of the assessee was dismissed, and the disallowance of Rs. 1,55,000 by the AO was upheld.Result:The Tribunal confirmed that the fine and penalty paid by the assessee for the infraction of customs law were not allowable as business expenses under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.