COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALCUTTA vs. SUGAULI SUGAR WORKS {P) LTD.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2344/1992Supreme Court[1999] 1 S.C.R. 40004 February 1999Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: M. SRINIVASAN, U.C. BANERJEE B8 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that Section 41 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, contemplates the assessee obtaining an amount in cash or any other manner, or a benefit by way of remission or cessation of a trading liability. The obtaining of such a benefit is a prerequisite for the application of the section. The Court affirmed the High Court's reasoning that a unilateral entry by the debtor in its accounts does not, by itself, bring about the cessation or remission of a liability. Remission must be granted by the creditor, and cessation requires more than just an accounting adjustment. The Court emphasized that the expiry of the period of limitation under the Limitation Act does not extinguish a debt but merely prevents the creditor from enforcing it. Therefore, a unilateral entry by the debtor, without any act on the part of the creditor, does not signify the end of a liability or confer a benefit contemplated by Section 41. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

For the assessment year 1965-66, the assessee, Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd., transferred Rs. 3,45,000 from its suspense account (1946-47 to 1948-49) to its capital reserve account. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) determined that Rs. 1,29,000 related to deposits and advances that had been repaid. Consequently, the ITO included Rs. 2,56,529 in the assessee's total income under Section 41 of the Income Tax Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the ITO's order. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that a unilateral entry in the accounts by the assessee did not bring the matter within the scope of Section 41. The High Court, on reference, agreed with the ITAT. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) appealed to the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a unilateral entry by the assessee in its accounts, transferring an amount from a suspense account to a capital reserve account, constitutes 'obtaining' a benefit by way of remission or cessation of a trading liability, thereby attracting Section 41 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? The assessee contended that a unilateral entry by itself does not bring about the cessation or remission of a liability, as remission must be granted by the creditor and cessation requires more than just an accounting entry. The revenue argued that the expiry of over 20 years without any action by the creditor indicated a cessation of debt, making it fall under Section 41. The revenue relied on Commissioner of Income-Tax v. General Industrial Society Ltd. The assessee relied on the reasoning of the High Court and the judgment in J.K. Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City II.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 41

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 203 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

A B c COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALCUTTA .v. SUGAULI SUGAR WORKS {P) LTD. FEBRUARY 4, 1999 (M. SRINIVASAN AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.] Income Tax Act, 1961 : Section 41-Applicability of-Necessary condition for. Assessee-Respondent-Private Limited Company-Assessment year 1965-66-Assessment of tevt-Assessee transferred a sum of Rs. 3,45,000 out of the suspense account running from 1946-47 to 1948-49 to the capital reserve · account-The Income Tax Officer found that an amount of Rs. 1,29,000 was D with reference to the deposits and advances which had been paid back and therefore he included a sum of Rs. 2,56,529 under Section 41 of the Income Tax Act in the total income of the assessee-On appeal by assessee Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the Order of I.T.0.-Tribunal held unilateral entry by assessee in the accounts transferring the amount to the capital reserve account would not bring the matter within the scope of Section E 41-0n reference Hifjt Court held in favour of assessee--Appeal before Supreme Court-Held view taken by Hifjt Court is co"ect-Section 41 con- templates the obtaining by the assessee of an amount either in cash or in any other manner w

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 41

All 156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 41 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →