Case: Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Calcutta

2. 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 extent that had been determined. The Income Tax Officer, however, completed the assessment on 11th March, 1960 before any final decision was given 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 amount and had made no provisions 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 for the opinion of the High Court:-"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?"3. The High Court was of the opinion that unpaid and disputed sales tax liability could not form 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), 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 purpose 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 (1) of the Act.

Reasoning: 7. Now under all sales tax laws including the statute with which we are concerned, the moment a dealer makes either purchases or sales which are subject to taxation, the obligation to pay the tax arises and tax ability 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 assessment. It is significant that in the present case, the liability had even been quantified and a demand had been created in the sum of Rupees 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 assessmentIt is not possible to comprehend how the liability would 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 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 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, (1963) 50 ITR 495 (Mad)   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 on the last day of his accounting year and claimed that 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 Collectors demand for payment and that his endeavour to get out of that liability by preferring appeals could not in any way detract from or retard the efficacy of the liability which had been imposed upon him by the competent excise authority. In our judgment, the above decision lays down the law correctlyWe 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 although under the law, a deduction must 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 assessee might take of his rights nor can the existence 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 may be added that the liability remained intact even after the assessee had taken appeals to higher authorities or Courts which failed.