KUMARAN MILLS LIMITED VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
2001 P T D 3730
[241 I T R 564]
[Madras High Court (India)]
Before N. V. Balosubramanian and P. Thangavel, JJ
KUMARAN MILLS LIMITED
versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX
Tax Case No.1146 of 1985 (Reference No.653 of 1985), decided on /01/.
th
December, 1997. Income‑tax‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Business expenditure‑‑‑Bonus‑‑‑Amount agreed to be paid in excess of statutory amount under settlement with workers under S.18 of Industrial Disputes Act‑‑‑Additional amount paid on grounds of commercial expediency‑‑‑Amount deductible under S.37‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.37‑‑‑Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, S.18‑‑‑Indian Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.
There was a settlement arrived at under section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, between the management of certain mills associations in Coimbatore and the workers' union. Under the settlement arrived at on October 12, 1979, and October 15, 1979, regarding the bonus for the years 1978, 1979 and 1980, apart from the bonus payable under the Payment of Bonus Act the management had also agreed to pay an additional amount towards bonus. For the assessment year, the assessee made provision for the bonus as per the settlement and claimed deduction of the amount. The Income‑tax Officer restricted the provision to 20 per cent. of the wages being the maximum permissible under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, and disallowed the rest of the amount. This was upheld by the Tribunal. On a reference:
Held, that the agreement with the workers indicated that there were nearly 40 cotton mills which were parties to the said agreement and in consideration of the assurance of the trade unions that they would extend their cooperation for uninterrupted better productivity in the mills, the managements covered under the agreement agreed to pay additional payment towards the bonus for the said years. The result of entering into the agreement with the union, was that there was an enforceable obligation against the assessee to pay an additional sum towards the bonus and if for any reason, the assessee committed a default in making the payment agreed to under section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act the assessee would be facing unrest in the organisation and its production would also be seriously affected. Since the amount was paid on grounds of commercial expediency, the payment made over and above the statutory maximum was deductible under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
CIT v. Lakshmi Mills Co. Ltd. (1999) 240 ITR 81 (Mad.) fol.
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.
C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.
JUDGMENT
N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.‑‑‑This is a reference at the instance of the assessee and the following question of law has been referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
"Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the additional payment made in pursuance .of settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act would not qualify for deduction under section 37?"
The assessee is a company in which the public are not substantially interested. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of yarn. For the assessment year 1980‑81 for which the accounting year ended on December 31, 1979, the assessee filed a return of income admitting the income of Rs.60,53,060 and the assessee claimed deduction towards the provision made for bonus at 32 per cent. of the wages for the year 1979 amounting to Rs.9,81,483. The provision was made by debiting the amount to the profit and loss account. The Income‑tax Officer restricted the provision to 20 per cent. of the wages being the maximum permissible under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, and disallowed the rest of the amount on the ground that both the payments were made simultaneously and partook of the character of the bonus. He, therefore, held that the excess amount over and above 20 per cent: of the wages is liable to be disallowed under section 36 of the Act‑The officer also held that the additional amount cannot be deducted under section 37 of the Act on the ground that it was specifically excluded as the expenditure described in sections 30 to 36. For the same reason, he has disallowed deduction of Rs.2,91,766 and another sum of Rs.54,019 pertaining to the other years. In effect, the Income‑tax Officer disallowed the total sum of Rs.3,68,056. But the reference with which we are concerned is with respect to the' provision made towards the sum of Rs.2,91,766.
The assessee went on appeal before the Commissioner of Income‑tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income‑tax (Appeals) held that the provision for additional payment was deductible under section 37 of the Act as the provision was made in conformity with the terms of the settlement arrived at under section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Commissioner of Income‑tax (Appeals) in this view held that the assessee is entitled to deduction of a sum of Rs.2,91,766.
The Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal held that the nature of the liability was bonus and, consequently, the claim of the assessee has to be determined only under the provisions of section 36(1)(ii) of the Act and it is not open to the assessee to claim the same under section 37 of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Tribunal sought for a reference and the Appellate Tribunal stated a case and referred the question of law set out supra.
Mr. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, learned counsel for the assessee, contended that pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the parties, the assessee had to pay a sum of Rs.2,91,766. Since there was a valid settlement arrived at by the assessee with the workers "union", the assessee was obliged to pay a sum of Rs.2,91,766. He, therefore, submitted that the provision was made for the said liability and it is liable to be deducted in the computation of the business income of the assessee.
Mr. C.V. Rajan, learned counsel for the Revenue, however, submitted that the provision made by the assessee was towards the bonus and hence under the provisions of section 36(1)(ii) of the Act, the excess amount cannot be allowed as a deduction.
We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It is seen that there was a settlement arrived at under section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the management of certain mills associations in Coimbatore and the workers' union. Under the settlement arrived at on October 12, 1979, and October 15, 1979, a settlement was arrived at regarding the bonus for the years 1978, 1979 and 1980. Under the settlement it was agreed that apart from the bonus payable under the Payment of Bonus Act, the managements have also agreed to pay an additional amount towards bonus. The agreement indicated that there were nearly 40 cotton mills which were parties to the said agreement and in consideration of the assurance of the trade unions that they would extend their cooperation for uninterrupted better productivity in the mills, the managements covered under the agreement agreed to make additional payment towards the bonus for the said years. The assessee undertook to make additional payments towards bonus on the basis of commercial expediency as the workers have assured to extend their full hearted cooperation in the smooth working of the mills and for better production of the products in the mills. Though the additional amount agreed to be paid was in excess of the maximum ceiling limit prescribed under the Payment of Bonus Act, the assessee agreed to pay the said additional sum because of business considerations. The result of entering into the agreement with the union was that there was an enforceable obligation against the assessee to pay an additional sum towards the bonus and if for any reason, the assessee commits a default in making the payment agreed to under the section 18 settlement, the assessee would be facing unrest in the organisation and its production would also be seriously affected. Taking into account all these aspects, the assessee made a provision of a sum of Rs.2,91,766 in its account. Since the amount was agreed to be paid on the basis of commercial expediency and on business considerations it would not fall within the parameters of the Payment of Bonus Act, we are of .the view that the said sum is allowable as a business deduction under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A similar question came up for consideration before us in CIT v. Lakshmi Mills Co. Ltd, (1999) 240 ITR 81 (T.C. No. 1188 of 1985), and this Court by judgment, dated March 4, 1997, held that the provisions of section 36(1)(ii) will apply only in the case of bonus paid under the Bonus Act and where the bonuses such as incentive bonus, attendance bonus or customary bonus are paid they are allowable under section 37 of the Act on the score that the expenditure was laid out wholly or exclusively for the purpose of the business.
Following the said decision, we are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the payment trade in pursuance of the settlement arrived at between the assessee‑company and the workers under section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act over and above the statutory maximum bonus is not allowable under section 37 of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the question of law referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee. No costs.
M.B.A./631/FC??????????
Order accordingly.