Court held that , argument (inter alia) that s. 43B(f) is unconstitutional because it supersedes the judgement of the Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT (.2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC) is wrong. S. 43B does not place any embargo upon the autonomy of the assessee in adopting a particular method of accounting, nor deprives the assessee of any lawful deduction. It merely imposes an additional condition of actual payment for the availment of deduction qua the specified head . Court also held that while interpretation of taxing statutes , the legislature has larger discretion. Though the enactment invalidated by Court the Legislature free to diagnose law and alter invalid elements , it does not mean legislature declares opinion of court invalid. (CANo 3545/2009 dt. 24/4/2020)
UOI v Exide Industries Ltd (2020) 425 ITR 1/ 189 DTR 62/ 315 CTR 62 / 273 Taxman 189 (SC) www.itatonline .org
S.43B: Deductions on actual payment – Leave encashment – Method of accounting -Section does not place any embargo upon the autonomy of the assessee in adopting a particular method of accounting, nor deprives the assessee of any lawful deduction. It merely imposes an additional condition of actual payment for the availment of deduction qua the specified head -Provision is not unconstitutional-Interpretation of taxing statutes – Legislature has larger discretion- Enactment invalidated by Court — Legislature free to diagnose law and alter invalid elements — Does not mean legislature declares opinion of court invalid. [ S. 37(1) 43B(f), 145 , Art . 14 ]