M/S.COVEMA FILAMENTS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The next issue is on the provision for interest in a Bank loan made for the earlier years; from 2000-01 to 2005-06, being permissible as a deduction under Explanation 1(i) to Section 115JB(2). On facts, it has to be noticed that the assessee's specific claim was that though the interest was shown as a provision in the earlier years, the same was disallowed under Section 43B. It is also contended that in computation of the MAT under Section 115JB, this amount was added back as an unascertained liability in the earlier years. The assessee had been communicating with the Bank as to a One Time Settlement [OTS] during the said period. Eventually in the previous year relevant to the subject year, 2006-07, the matter was settled with the Bank. The entire interest was waived by the Bank and also a portion of the principal. The interest so debited to the profit and loss account for the earlier years was, hence, debited from the reserve and credited to the profit and loss account for the subject year. The same had to be deducted under Explanation (i) to Section 115JB(2).

The Tribunal, however, found that the interest is an unascertained liability and ought not to have been disallowed in the earlier years. When the AO as per the remand report at Annexure-C specifically states that it is - 4 - disallowed under Section 43B, it was not proper for the Tribunal to have taken such a view. The learned Standing Counsel, Government of India (Taxes) also argues that as of now it is not clear as to whether the same was added back under Section 115JB. In such circumstances, the earlier issue having been remanded, it is only proper that the AO considers this issue also looking at the facts. However, we make it clear that the question of law raised as to whether the same was unascertained liability or ascertained liability is answered in favour of the assessee; if the same has been disallowed under Section 43B as an unascertained liability in the earlier years.