1. Land development business — Sale of plots with infrastructure undertaking — Mercantile accounting — Claim for deduction of estimated future expenditure as accrued liability. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1959 Supreme(SC) 113
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
12th May, 1959.
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., N.H. BHAGWATI AND M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.
Calcutta Co. Ltd., Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 213 of 1955.
Advocate Appeared
Shri A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate (Messrs N. C. Talukdar. and Sukumar Chose, Advocates, with him), for Appellant; Messrs K, N. Rajagopal Sastri and D. Gupta, Advocates, for Respondent.
Advocates:
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, D.GUTPA, K.N.RAJAGOPAL SASTRI, N.C.TALUKDAR, SUKUMAR GHOSH
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, D.GUTPA, K.N.RAJAGOPAL SASTRI, N.C.TALUKDAR, SUKUMAR GHOSH
Under the mercantile system of accounting, an unconditional legal liability incurred to earn business receipts is an accrued liability and is deductible for computing "profits and gains," even if actual disbursement occurs later and the amount is based on a reasonable estimate.
Headnote:(A) Indian Income-tax Act - Sections 10(1) and 10(2)(xv) - Mercantile system of accounting - Accrued liability vs. Contingent liability - Deduction of estimated expenditure - Computation of profits and gains - The mercantile system brings into credit what is legally due before it is actually received and brings into debit expenditure for which a legal liability has been incurred before it is actually disbursed (Para 11) - An unconditional undertaking incorporated in a deed of sale to carry out developments creates an accrued liability on the date of the deed, even if the liability is to be discharged at a future date (Para 19) - Difficulty in estimating the exact amount of an accrued liability does not convert it into a conditional or contingent liability, as tax authorities may fix an appropriate money value by considering all circumstances (Paras 21-22).
(B) Computation of Profits and Gains - The expression "profits and gains" must be understood in its commercial sense, meaning the surplus by which receipts exceed the expenditure necessary for earning those receipts (Para 25) - To ascertain true profits, all expenditure or obligations to which receipts have given rise must be set off (Para 26) - Deductions listed under Section 10(2) are not exhaustive; any deduction arising out of the carrying on of business and incidental to it, based on accepted commercial practice and trading principles, is allowable under Section 10(1) provided there is no express or implied prohibition in the Act (Paras 28-29).
Facts of the case:
A company engaged in land development sold plots where the full sale price was credited in its books under the mercantile system, although only a portion was received in cash. In the deeds of sale, the company undertook to provide infrastructure, including roads, drainage, and street lighting, within a reasonable time. The company claimed a deduction for the estimated expenditure required to fulfill these obligations. The tax authorities and the High Court disallowed the deduction, reasoning that the expenses were not actually incurred in the year of account and the liability was contingent rather than accrued.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the undertaking in the deeds of sale was absolute and unconditional, thereby creating an accrued liability. Since the revenue had accepted the full sale price as income (including unpaid balances), it was inconsistent to deny the deduction of the liability incurred to earn those receipts.
Issues: Whether estimated expenditure for obligations undertaken in deeds of sale can be legally allowed as a deduction in the year of accrual under the mercantile system of accounting, even if actual disbursement occurs in a future year.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the mercantile system of accounting, a legal liability incurred is deductible even before actual disbursement. An unconditional obligation to perform services as part of a sale contract constitutes an accrued liability. The determination of "profits and gains" requires setting off all necessary expenditures or obligations against receipts to arrive at a commercial balance of profit. Section 10(2) of the Act does not exhaust all allowable deductions; those consistent with commercial practice and incidental to business are permissible under Section 10(1).
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Revenue — Expenditure not actually incurred and liability is contingent. Appellant — Liability accrued upon execution of sale deeds under the mercantile system of accounting. (Para 5 , 6 , 12 , 15 )
3. Absolute contractual undertakings create accrued liabilities; mercantile accounting permits debiting such liabilities; estimation difficulties do not render a liability contingent. (Para 10 , 11 , 14 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 33 )
4. Profits and gains are determined by deducting all necessary expenditures or accrued obligations incidental to business, regardless of whether they are specifically listed as statutory deductions. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Deduction of estimated expenditure as accrued liability permitted. (Para 32 , 34 )
6. How does the mercantile system of accounting treat income and expenditure for tax purposes?
The mercantile system credits income as soon as it becomes legally due, regardless of actual receipt, and debits expenditure when a legal liability is incurred, regardless of actual disbursement. (Para 11 )
7. When is a contractual obligation considered an accrued liability rather than a contingent one?
A liability is accrued if the undertaking is absolute and unconditional, not dependent on a future event, even if the discharge of that liability occurs at a future date. (Para 18 , 19 )
8. Does the inability to precisely determine the cost of a future obligation convert an accrued liability into a contingent one?
No; difficulty in estimation does not change the nature of the liability. Tax authorities may fix an appropriate money value of the liability by considering all relevant circumstances. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 )
9. Are the deductions listed under Section 10(2) of the Income-tax Act exhaustive for determining profits and gains under Section 10(1)?
No; deductions not specifically provided in Section 10(2) are allowable if they arise from carrying on the business and are incidental to it, according to accepted commercial practice. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 )
Judgement
N. H. BHAGWATI J. : This appeal with a certificate under Art. 135 of the Constitution read with S. 66A (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act raises the question as to whether the appellant was entitled to a deduction of Rs. 24,809 in the computation of its profits and gains for the assessment year 1948-49.
2. The appellant deals in land and property and carries on land developing business and in the course of the said business, it buys land, develops it so as to make it fit for building purposes and sells it at a profit in plots. The developments undertaken are in the main, that roads are to be laid out, a drainage system to be provided and street lights installed, and they are to be maintained till the same are taken over by the Municipality. The whole of the development is not carried out before the land is sold, nor the whole of the sale price received in cash at the time of the sales. The procedure followed is that when a plot is sold, the purchaser pays about 25 per cent, of the purchase price in cash and undertakes to pay the balance with interest at a certain rate in ten annual instalments which he secures by creating a charge on the land purchased. The appellant, in its turn, undertakes to carry out the developments within six months from the date of the sale, but this time is not of the essence of the contract and what the appellant under- takes is to carry out the developments within a reasonable time. The undertaking is corporated in the deed of sale itself, whereas the security is given by the purchaser by means of a separate document.
3. In the accounting year relating to the assessment year 1948-49 the appellant sold a number of plots and received a portion of the sale price from the purchasers according to the scheme mentioned above. The appellant maintains its accounts in the mercantile method under which money not actually received but only treated as received on the basis that it was due and receivable is entered in the books of account on the credit side. Even though the appellant did not receive the whole of the price, viz., Rs. 43,692-11-9, it entered in the credit side of its books of account the whole of that sum representing the full sale price of the lands sold during the accounting year though only a sum of Rs. 29,392-11-9 was actually received in cash from the purchaser and the balance of Rs. 14, 300 represented the unpaid balance retained by the purchasers the payment of which was secured by creating charge on the said lands as also the interest received or receivable in the year of account under the deeds of charge. The whole of this sum of Rs. 43,692-11-9 was, however, credited in the books of account by the appellant according to the mercantile system of accounting adopted by it.
4. In so far as under the terms of the needs of sale the appellant had undertaken to carry out the developments within six months from the date of sale it estimated a Sum of Rs. 24,809 as the expenditure for the developments to be carried out in respect of the plots which had been sold during the year and debited the same in its books of account on the ground that the liability for the said sum of Rs. 24,809 had actually arisen, the appellant being bound to provide the facilities it had undertaken to do, even though no part of that amount represented any expenditure actually made during that year.
5. In the course of its assessment to income-tax for the year 1948-49, the appellant claimed a deduction of the said sum of Rs. 24,809 in the computation of the profits and gains of its business. The Income-tax Officer disallowed that claim on the ground that the expenses had not been actually incurred in the year of account and also on the ground that the estimate had not been proved to be based on a consideration of the real expenses which the Company would have to incur for the purpose. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, on appeal, confirmed the disallowance by the I. T. O. on the ground that there was as yet no accrued l
