Hi Anand,You seem to be right. The great idea behind introduction of Section 43B into the Act was to create a disincentive for the assessees who under the guise of mercantile system of accounting simply made book entries without bothering to dispense cash to the employees/governmen t authorities for long periods of time. This is what the Objects and Reasons (paras 59 and 60) of Finance Act 1983 which brought in Section 43B states (capitalization mine): [Several cases have come to notice where taxpayers do not discharge their STATUTORY LIABILITY such as in respect of excise duty, employer's contribution to provident fund, Employees' State Insurance Scheme, etc., for long periods of time, extending sometimes to several years. For the purpose of their income-tax assessments, they claim the liability as deduction on the ground that they maintain accounts on mercantile or accrual basis. On the other hand they dispute the liability and do not discharge the same. For some reason or the other undisputed liabilities also are not paid. To curb this practice, it is proposed to provide that deduction for any sum payable by the assessee by way of tax or duty under any law for the lime being in force (irrespective of whether such tax or duty is disputed or not) or any sum payable by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution to any provident FUND or superannuation FUND or gratuity FUND or any other FUND for the welfare of employees shall be allowed only in computing the income of that previous year in which such sum is actually paid by him]The emphasis clearly is on statutory liability and not just any other contractual liability arising as a result of mutual agreement between the employer and the employee. The Kolkatta High Court in the case you cited--Exide Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [2007] 164 Taxman 9—did strike down clause (f) of Section 43B as unconstitutional and unconscionable. The court ruled that leave encashment provision was allowable merely on accrual basis. Parliament had injected clause (f) relating to LWW in Section 43B in the FA 2001 to scuttle the Apex Court decision in of Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC). The Supreme Court had allowed in that case the leave encashment expense on the basis of a mere provision. On the government's move to disregard the judge-made law in Bharat Movers case by bringing in clause (f) in Section 43B, the High court had this to say:[We do not for a single moment observe that the Legislature was not entitled to bring such amendment. They were within their power to bring such amendment. However they must disclose reasons which would be consistent with the provisions of the Constitution and the laws of the land and not for the sole object of nullifying the Apex Court decision]The High Court struck down clause (f) as unconstitutional, arbitrary and de hors the SC decision in Bharat Earth Movers. Based on the above discussion, in my view, performance- linked bonus—and not the one that the employer is statutorily required to pay to the employees in pursuance of the Payment of Bonus Act—can be claimed on the basis of an entry in the books of account, notwithstanding that it hasn't been disbursed before the filing of return of income.To avoid conflict you might consider changing the nomenclature of this payment—look up synonyms of Bonus in the OED!
Thanks,
CA Sanjeev Bedi
--- In ICAI_CIRC_MEERUT_ CA@yahoogroups. com, anand mishra
No comments:
Post a Comment