1988 (2) TMI 111

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al grounds, the assessee has contested the sustenance of addition of Rs. 21,542. Details of this amount as per the order of the CIT(A) are as under: (i) Rs. 3,835 Addl. sales-tax liability; (ii) Rs. 14,018 amount charged under s. 36(3) of Bombay Sales-tax Act. (iii) Rs. 3,689 Forfeited by the Govt. for excess collection.   Rs. 21,542   2. According ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e order of the CIT(A) is in further appeal before us. 3. The learned Counsel for the assessee has contended that the demand of Rs. 3,835 was created by the Sales-tax Department during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year under appeal and, therefore, the liability is admissible as a deduction for the assessment year under appeal. It was also stated that for certain sales the ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....being so, the assessee was entitled to deduction of the same when determined by the STO. The order of the CIT(A) on this account is, therefore, reversed. The assessee will be entitled to deduction of Rs. 3,835. 4. The second amount of Rs. 14,018 is on account of penalty under s. 36(3) of the Bombay Sales-tax Act for delayed payment of sales tax. The learned Counsel for the assessee relied on a ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itimate dues was admissible as a deduction. He also relied on the judgment reported in (1985) Taxation 77(1) r. 14. We have heard the learned DR also. 5. After considering the rival submissions we are included to agree with the judgment of Special Bench of the Tribunal. Since the penalty is in the nature of interest on loss of Government funds, in our opinion, the amount is allowable as deducti....