Madura Coats Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax

R. Jayasimha Babu, J.—A sum of Rs. 25,000 paid by the assessee to a purchaser of a property, which it had sold eight years earlier, has

been disallowed as not forming part of its allowable business expenditure. The assessee''s contention was that the payment was necessary even

though it was voluntary, as the assessee had to sell the property free of encumbrances.

No material was placed before the assessing authority by the assessee in support of that contention that there was an undischarged

encumbrance which required the assessee having to pay the amount eight years later. The assessee itself had purchased the property several

decades earlier and enjoyed the same and had sold it in the year 1968. After that sale, the Wakf Board had filed a suit against the purchaser,

claiming a right to possession and the assessee was not a party to that suit. The purchaser appears to have entered into a compromise with the

Wakf Board agreeing to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000. Subsequently, the purchaser received Rs. 25,000 from the assessee. There was clearly no

encumbrance in favour of the Wakf Board, which came to be discharged by the payment made by the assessee.

The assessee also did not place any material to show that its title to the property itself was defective in any way and that, therefore, there was a

duty to reimburse the purchaser any part of the amount that the purchaser had paid to any person who had a right in the property which was

enforceable.

Learned counsel for the assessee argued before us that the payment can be sustained on the ground that the assessee was required to make that

payment to preserve the goodwill and reputation of the assessee. That was not the ground put forth before the authority below. Moreover, a

voluntary payment made to a purchaser eight years after the sale, especially when the purchaser has no dealings with the assessee, except the fact

of having entered into the sale transaction years ago, cannot be regarded as a payment made for the purpose of preserving the goodwill and

reputation of the assessee.

The question referred to us, viz., question No. 21, regarding the correctness of the Tribunal''s holding that the amount paid by it to the

purchaser, Fenner India Ltd., during the assessment year 1978-79 is not allowable as a deduction, is, therefore, answered in favour of the

Revenue and against the assessee.

It is agreed by counsel that in the light of the decision in T. C. No. 391 of 1992, dated April 26, 2000, to which the assessee is a party question

No. 1, viz.,

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the weighted deduction u/s 35B is not allowable

with regard to the commission paid to dealers in India ?

is required to be answered in favour of the Revenue, and question No. 3, viz.,

Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that gratuity provision is not an allowable deduction ?

is also required to be answered in favour of the assessee. These questions are, therefore, answered accordingly.