Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. This is an undisputed fact that this Clause (d) was inserted by the Finance Act, 1990, w.e.f. 1st April, 1991 only. So it is very clear and evident from the provisions itself that the AO has wrongly applied the, provisions of Section 43B in this case by adding the unpaid interest to Rajasthan Financial Corporation which is a State Financial Corporation and, as such, the AO erred in law by making the addition of Rs. 1,37,710 under Section 143(1)(a) for the relevant assessment year which is required to be struck down. It is the duty of the AO, which is heavily cast on him, by the taxing enactments that the AO has to allow deductions, rebate, etc. if they are admissible as per the provisions of the Act, even if the assessee fails to claim the same. On the other hand, again a heavy duty is cast upon the AO to look into the fact as to whether such allowances, rebates, deductions, etc. are not allowable as per law, even if they are claimed by the assessee. So, the AO has failed in his duty to notice the provisions of the Act during the relevant period of this case and thereby has wrongly applied the provisions of Section 43B and, more particularly, when the AO did not consider the second revised return as valid, but at the same time, he incorporated a certain figure returned by the assessee in the second revised return without even questioning the liability of the assessee in this regard. Consequently, we are of the opinion that when the provisions of Section 43B were not invoked, any additions, under the said provisions, cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law. Consequently, we delete this addition and accept the additional ground of the assessee.

8. The matter has been placed before me under Section 255(4) of the IT Act. I have heard both the parties. The assessee while surrendering the amount in question in the second revised return had stated as under:

Add. (Less) Disallowance under Section 43B

(i) Interest payable to Rajasthan Financial Corporation Amount provided 2,72,364 Less : paid-upto 31-12-1989 57,000 2,15,364

9. It is evident from above that interest payable to RFC was added back under Section 43B of the IT Act. No dispute was raised before me nor there is any difference between the learned Members hearing the appeal that Clause (d) to Section 43B was introduced through Finance Act, 1990 applicable w.e.f. 1st April, 1991. The aforesaid provision was not applicable in the asst. yr. 1989-90 which is now under appeal. It is clear that under some legal misconception and as revised return was filed after 1st April, 1991, the amount in question was surrendered and added back in the revised return. However the learned AO did not treat above return as a, valid return as the return was filed after the period prescribed in Section 139(5) of the IT Act was over. The revised return was treated as non est. Yet the amounts surrendered in the aforesaid return was added in the assessment. Therefore it is a case of disallowance of a claim under Section 43B(d) of the Act. Thus a statutory provision introduced subsequently and not applicable was applied in the assessment year and addition of the amount was made. In my considered opinion, facts are crystal clear on record and need no further investigation. The decisions cited by the learned JM in his proposed order are clearly attracted. The disallowance made by the AO in the assessment order, (is) contrary to statutory provision and could not be sustained. Assessment is required to be made in accordance with law and therefore mere fact that assessee had inadvertently surrendered the amount in return was not material. On facts and circumstances of the case learned JM was fully justified in admitting additional ground of appeal and in deleting the addition in dispute. I agree with the order proposed by him on this point.