Shrikant Textiles vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 5 March, 1970
The learned senior counsel for the assessee, Sri S.E. Dastur, while reiterating the submissions made by the assessee before the authorities below, submitted that the assessee had a cash credit arrangement with the Bank of India and was liable to pay interest thereon. The interest accrued from the asst. yr. 1987-88 to' 1989-90 at a total of Rs. 3,72,10,370, which is claimed as expenditure during the relevant assessment year, as the bank had issued certificates during the relevant assessment year. He submitted that the bank debited the interest on quarterly basis and the assessee being a sick industry had filed an application before the BIFR and therefore in its books of account, the interest liability to be paid was not recorded. He submitted that this was due to the prayer of the assessee before the BIFR to waive thus interest. Meanwhile, the bank debited the assessee's account with the interest and issued the certificates to this effect which compelled the assessee to claim deduction after filing of the return of income, but during the assessment proceedings. He drew our attention to p. 7--para 13 of the assessment order, wherein the Bank of India letters dt. 6th Dec, 1988 and 19th April, 1989 are referred to. He submitted that the BIFR in August, 1991 had waived the total interest payable to Bank of India and also directed that Section 41(1) will not apply to the assessee. For the proposition that because of pendency of assessee's application before BIFR for the waiver of interest, it cannot be said that there is no liability, the learned senior counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Srikant Textiles v. CIT wherein the High Court was dealing with a case of demand for payment of excise duty on goods purchased by the assessee and the amount of demand was entered into accounts as expense, though the liability to pay the duty was disputed. The Hon'ble Court held that as the duty was levied and the demand for that sum was not withdrawn or cancelled and the offer to levy excise duty at a different date under the compounded levy system was made on express condition that the assessee should agree to pay duty calculated on the basis of compounded levy system and this condition was not accepted by the assessee, the liability to pay the excise duty remained an ascertained liability and the assessee was entitled to have this amount allowed as expenses. It was further held that the fact that by the second notice of demand, the reduced amount of excise duty was claimed after the accounting year was closed cannot be the basis for a finding that by the letter dt. 22nd Oct., 1958, the assessee firm was definitely or specifically informed that excise duty in respect of business of the assessee firm in the accounting year was being recalculated on a fresh basis. He also drew our attention to p. 99 of the paper book wherein the BIFR has directed that Section 41(1) will not apply to the assessee. He submitted that the direction to this effect was on the premise that deduction is allowed during the assessment year. Thus, according to him the interest payable is allowable during the relevant assessment year.