Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

RANJAN GOGOI,J.

Petitions.

2. Four of the present appeals involve the same assessee, i.e., M/s Modipon Ltd. and are in respect of the Assessment Years 1993-1994, 1996-1997, 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 respectively. The fifth appeal is in case of another assessee, i.e., Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. and pertains to the Assessment Year 1996-1997.

3. The question involved in all the appeals is the same and may be formulated as hereunder:

“Whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the excise duty paid in advance in the Personal Ledger Account (“PLA” for short)?”

4. Before delving into the question formulated one significant fact common to the appeals involving the assessee-Modipon Ltd. may be noted. From the Assessment Year 1984-1985 (from which assessment year Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 came into force), the assessee has been claiming deduction under the aforesaid provision of the Income Tax Act in respect of the balance amount in the PLA at the end of each accounting year and the assessee had been adding back the same amount as part of the taxable income in the immediately succeeding accounting year in order to avoid double deduction. The aforesaid practice consistently adopted by the assessee had been all along accepted by the Revenue from the Assessment Year 1984-1985 up to the Assessment Year 1998-1999 except for the four assessment years under consideration.

8. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties.

Notwithstanding the acceptance by the Revenue of the practice adopted by the assessee-Modipon Ltd. in all the assessment years except for the ones under dispute as enumerated above and the absence of any challenge to the decisions of the Delhi and the Punjab & Haryana High Courts, the present challenge would still be entertainable so long as it discloses a substantial question of law or an issue impacting public interest or the same has the potential of recurrence in future. The Revenue cannot be shut out from the present proceedings merely because of its acceptance of the practice of accounting adopted by the assessee or its acceptance of the decision of the two High Courts in question. An adjudication of the question(s) arising cannot be refused merely on the above basis. We will, therefore, have to proceed to answer the merits of the challenge made by the Revenue in the present appeals.

Civil Appeal No.19763 of 2017 arising out of Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 29816/2011 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-01-2011 in ITA No. 768/2004 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S MODIPON LTD. Respondent(s) ([ HEARD BY : HON. RANJAN GOGOI AND HON. NAVIN SINHA, JJ. ]RESPONDENT CAUSE TITLE MAY BE SHOWN AS "M/S MODIPON LTD.") WITH Civil Appeal No.19767 of 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 16633/2012 (XVI) Civil Appeal No.19768 of 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 15939/2012 (XIV) Civil Appeal No.19769 of 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 29817/2011 (XIV) Civil Appeal No.19770 of 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 31209/2011 (XIV) Date : 24-11-2017 These matters were called on for pronouncement of judgment today.