Allowed

Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Calcutta

Supreme Court17 Aug 19711971 INSC 203 · [1972] 1 S.C.R. 2771971 INSC 203

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Assessee on mercantile system claimed deduction of disputed sales tax accrued in assessment year 1955-56. Supreme Court held liability accrues on sale, independent of assessment or quantification; deduction allowable under ss.10(1) and 10(2)(xv); absence of book entries not decisive.

What did the court decide?

Deduction of Rs. 1,49,776 sales tax allowed; referred question answered for assessee with costs in both courts.

What the court decided

Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income… — Income Tax | Supreme Court (1972)

¶1

277

¶2

¶3

KEDARNATH JUTE MFG. CO. LTD.

¶4

¶5

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CALCUTTA

¶6

August 17, 1971

¶7

¶8

[K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]

¶9

Income-tax Act, 1922, ss. 10(1) and 10(2)(xv)-Disputed and unpaid sales tax whether a permissible deduction-Liability accrues in year of" sale and not when sales tax demand is quantified or finally determined-"Where mercantile system ~f accouming is adopted amount is deductible when liability accrues and the time when liability is discharged is c irrelevant-Position is not changed even when entries in books of account are made at a later date.

¶10

The appellant was a public limited company doing the business of jute and manufacturing of jute goods. It followed the mercantile system of accounting. Before the Income-tax Officer in connection with the assessment year 1955-56 the appellant claimed a deduction on account of assessed sales-tax. The demand of sales-tax was contested by the appelD lant before the higher. sales-tax authorities but before the matter was finalised the Income-tax Officer completed the assessment, He disallowed appellant's claim for deduction of sales tax on the ground that the liability, to pay sales tax had not been accepted by the appellant and no provision had been made in its books with regard to payment of the assessed amount. The authorities under the Act dismissed the appeals. The High Court in reference was of the opinion that unpaid E and disputed sales tax liability could not form the basis of a claim for deduction. In appeal by special leave to this Court the appellant submitted that sales tax paid or unpaid would be admissible deduction under s.10(2)(xv) as well as s. 10(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and that where the mercantile system of accounting was observed the deduction would be permissible in the year to which the liability relates irrespective of the point of time when the liability has been actually F discharged.

¶11

HELD: Under all sales tax laws including the statute applicable to the present case the moment a dealer makes either purchases or sales which are subject to taxation, the obligation to pay tax arises and taxability is attracted. Although that liability cannot be enforced till the quantification is effected by assessment proceedings, the liability for G payment of tax is independent of the assessment. Jn the present case the liability had even been quantified. The liability could not cease to· be one merely because the assessee had taken proceedings before ·higher authorities. An assessee that follows the mercantile system of accounting is entitled to deduct from the profits and gains of the business ·.such liability which had accrued during the period for which the profits and gains were being computed even though it had to be discharged at a future date. [281B-F] H

¶12

¶13

Commissioner of Income-tax West Bengal II v. Royal Boot House, 75· l.T.R. 507 and Pope The King Match Factory v . . Commissioner ~f lnaome-tax Madras, 50 l.T.R. 495, applied.

¶14

[1972] l S.C.R.

¶15

278

¶16

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶17

The contention that since the assessee had failed to debit the .liability in its books of accounts, it was debarred from claiming the same as deduction either under s.10(1) or s.10(2)(xv) of the Act could not be accepted. Whether the assessee is entitled to a particular deduction or not will depend on the provision of law relating thereto and not on the view which the assessee might take of his rights nor can existence or absence of entries in the books of accounts be decisive or conclusive in the matter. [282 C-E]

¶18

¶19

¶20

Th' appeal must accordingly be allowed.

¶21

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1899 of 1967.

¶22

Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order c dated August 24, 1966 of the Calcutta High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 91 of 1962.

¶23

G. C. Sharma, ff. Kumaria, B. R. Diwan and P. K. Mukherjee, for the appellant.

¶24

Jagadish Swarup, Solicitor-Generql, P. L. Juneja, D R. N. Sachthey 11.nd B. D. Sharma, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶25

Grover, J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court iri an Jncome-.tax Reference.

¶26

¶27

The assessee who is the appellant is a public limited company doing the business of jute and manufacturing of jute goods. The method of accounting followed by the assessee is the mercantile system. During the assessment year 1955-56 (the previous year ended on 31st December, 1954), the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,49,776/on account of sales tax determined to be payable by the sales.' tax authorities on the sales made by the assessee during the aforesaid previous year. The sequence of dates may be mentioned. The income tax return was filed on 13th January, 1956. The demand notice . was served by the Sales Tax authorities on the 21st November 1957. On 9th November, 1959, the assessee filed a revised return claiming the aforesaid deduction. · The assessee had taken the order by which the demand for such· tax had been created to the higher departmental authorities, as it was contesting its liability to the exte:;nt that had been determined. The Income-tax ... Officer, however, completed the assessment on 11th March,

8 :

KEDAR NATH JUTE MFG. co. v. C.I.T. (Grover, /.)

¶32

279

¶33

A 1960 before any final decision was giyen in the proceedings relating to the assessment of sales tax. According to the Income Tax Officer, the assessee was not entitled to claim the deduction of the aforesaid. amount of sales tax inasmuch as it had denied its liability to pay that B amount and had made no provision in its books with regard to the payment of that amount. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The following question of law was referred by the Tribunal Lir the opinion of the High c Court:---

¶34

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, amount of Rs. 1,49,776/which was claimed by the assessee as a deduction on· account -of sales tax was deductible as a business expense?"

¶35

The High Court was of the opinion that unpaid and D disputed sales tax liability could not fdrm the basis of a claim for deduction for the purposes of income tax. The reasoning of the High Court mainly was that for the purpose of claiming a deduction under s. 10(2) (xv) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the "Act"), E mere legal liability was not enough. There had to be an expenditure in the first place and it must be laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpos,e of such business. The High Court further held that unpaid and disputed sales tax could not be validly deducted in the computation of business income even under s. 10 (I) of F the Act.

¶36

¶37

It has been submitted on behalf of the assessee that sales tax paid or unpaid would be admissible deduction under s. 10 (2)(xv) as well as under s, IO(!). It is pointed out that if the method . of accounting adopted by the assessee is cash system, it would qualify for deducG tion only in the year in which it has been actually paid. If the method of accounting is mercantile system, then the deduction will be permissible in the year to which the liability relates irrespective of the point of time when the liability has actually been discharged. Section ( 10) 5 pr-0vides that in sub-section ( 2) "paid" means actually paid or H incurred according to the method of accounting upon the basis of which the profits or gains are computed. under the section. The argument proceeds that in orde1 19-Lt245SupCI/71

¶38

[1972] l S.C.R.

¶39

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶40

280

¶41

¶42

therefore, that sales tax may qualify for deduction under s. 10 (2) (xv), it has to be in the nature of an 'expenditure' which has either been actually paid during the year of account or for the payment of which, the liability has been incurred in the accounting year, according as the method of accounting followed by the assessee is cash system or 8 mercantile system. It is indisputable that the amount of sales tax paid or payable by the assessee is an 'expenditure' within the meaning of s. 10 (2) (xv). The amount in question was thus a kind of expenditure about which there can be no doubt that it had been laid out or expended wholly or exclusively for the purpose of business carried c on by the assessee.

¶43

¶44

The submission on behalf of the assessee in the alternative is that apart from valid deductibility of sales tax as an expenditure under s. 10 (2) (xv) of the Act, it is a permissible deduction even under s. 10 (1). The profits of a business which are to be assessed to tax must be real profits and they have to be ascertained on ordinary principles of commercial trading and commercial accounting. Where an assessee is under a liability or is bound to make certain payment from the gross receipts, the profits and gains can only be net amount after such an amount is deducted from the gross profits or receipts.

¶45

¶46

¶47

In Commissioner of Income-tax, West Benga(JT-V. Royal Boot House,(¹ ) it was held that where the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting and, without disputing the liability to pay the Sales Tax had made a provision for its payment in its account even though he had not actually paid the tax over to the authorities, the assessee was entitled to deduction in respect of the prov1s10n for sales tax from his income under s. 10(2) (xv) of the Act. It was pointed out that under the provisions of the Sales Tax statutes, the liability to pay the tax was not dependent upon assessment or demand but was an obligation to pay the tax either annually, quarterly or monthly, as the case might be. This case was an.d has been sought to be distinguished by the Revenue 011 ·the ground that the liability to pay the Sales Tax had not been disputed and the assessee had made a provision for its payment in its account. As will be. presently

(I) 75 I.T.R. 507.

KEDAR NATH JUTE MFIJ. co. '. C.J.T. (G'rover, J.)

¶53

281

¶54

seen this distinction is without substance and does not affect the true legal position.

¶55

Now under all sales tax laws including the statute with which we are concerned, the moment a dealer makes B either purchases or sales which are subject to taxation, the obligation to· pay the tax arises and taxability is attracted. Although that liability cannot be enforced till the quantification is effected by assessment proceedings, the liability for payment of tax is independent of the asses~ ment. It is significant that in th1: present case, the liab1c .lity had even been quantified and a demand had been created in the sum of Rs. 1,49,776/by means of the notice dated 21st November, 1957 during the pendency of the assessment proceedings before the Income Tax Officer and before the finalisation of the assessment. It is not possible to comprehend how the liability would D cease to be one because the assessee had taken proceedings before higher authorities for getting it reduced or wiped out so long as the contention of the assessee did not prevail with regard to the quantum of liability etc. An assessee that follows the mercantile system of accounting is entitled to deduct from the profits and gains of the E business such liability which had accrued during the period for which the profits and gains were being computed. It can again not be disputed that the liability to payment of sales tax had accrued during the year of assessment even though it had to be discharged at a future date. In Pope The King Match Factory v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras (¹ ) a demand for excise duty was served on the assessee and though he was objecting to it and seeking to get the order of the Collector of Excise reversed, he debited that amount in his accounts o'n the last day of his accounting year and claimed that G amount as a deductible allowance on the ground that he was keeping his accounts on the mercantile basis. The Madras High Court had no difficulty in holding that the assessee had incurred an enforceable legal liability on and from the date on which he received the Collector's demand for payment and that his endeavour to get out of that H liability by preferring appeals could not in any way detract from or retard the efficacy of the liability which (I) 501.T.R.495.

[1972) I S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶63

282

¶64

¶65

had been imposed upon him by the competent excise authority. In our judgment, the above decision lays down the law correctly.

¶66

The main contention of the learned Solicitor General is that the assessee failed to debit the liability in its books of accounts and, therefore, it was debarred from claiming 8 the same as deduction either under section IO (I) or under s. IO (2) (xv) of the Act. We are wholly unable to appreciate the suggestion that if an assessee under some misapprehension or mistake fails to make an entry in the books of account and althpugh under the law, a deduction must c be allowed by the Income Tax Officer, the assessee will lose the right of claiming or will be debarred from being allowed that deduction. Whether the assessee is entitled to a particular deduction or not will depend on the provision of law relating thereto and not on the view which the ass.essee might take of his rights nor can the existence 0 or absence of entries in the books of account be decisive or conclusive in the matter. The assessee who was maintaining accounts on the mercantile system was fully justified in claiming deduction of the sum of Rs. 1,49,776/being the amount of sales tax which it was liable under the law to pay during the relevant accounting year. It E may be added that the liability remainoo in tact even after the assessee had taken appeals to higher authorities or Courts which failed. The appeal is consequently allowed .and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The question which was referred is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The assessee will be F entitled to costs in this Court and in the High Court.

G. C.

Appeal allowed.

•