Unpaid Excise Duty on Bonded Closing Stock Cannot Be Added to Taxable Income

The Supreme Court of India allowed the civil appeal preferred by the assessee (M/s. Lakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.), setting aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court and restoring the concurrent findings of the CIT (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). A Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Anjaria held that unpaid excise duty on uncleared closing stock remaining inside a bonded warehouse—which was neither debited to the Profit & Loss account nor claimed as an allowable expenditure by the assessee—cannot be added back to the value of closing stock or added to taxable income under Section 43B read with Section 145A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court highlighted that the High Court proceeded on an erroneous factual assumption that the goods had been removed, and emphasized that disallowing an expense which the assessee never actually claimed as a deduction is legally impermissible under the Act.

1. Factual Matrix & Background

• Assessee & Business: The appellant manufactures crystal sugar via the vacuum pan process, producing molasses as a by-product. It follows the standard mercantile accounting system and the exclusive method under Accounting Standard (AS)-2.
• Assessment Year 2005-06: The assessee filed its return declaring a net loss of ₹28,36,167/-. The Tax Auditor’s Report (Form 3CD, Annexure-A) noted that total excise duty leviable on closing stock was ₹2,80,56,430/-, of which ₹2,10,64,447/- was paid by the due date, leaving an unpaid balance of ₹69,91,983/-.
• Assessee’s Stand: The assessee explained that under the Central Excise Act, 1944, liability to pay excise duty crystallizes only upon the removal/clearance of goods from factory/bonded premises. Since the sugar stock remained in bonded godowns under Government control, duty had not accrued or become payable. Furthermore, because it followed the exclusive method and did not debit the ₹69,91,983/- to its P&L account, it never claimed any deduction.
• Assessing Officer (AO) Addition: The AO rejected the assessee’s explanation and added ₹69,91,983/- to the returned taxable income under Section 43B read with Section 145A of the Income Tax Act.
• Appellate History:
  • CIT (Appeals): Deleted the addition, holding that since no expenditure was claimed in the P&L account and the net profit impact under Section 145A was Nil, Section 43B was inapplicable.
  • ITAT Delhi Bench: Affirmed the CIT(A) order, noting that both opening and closing stocks would have to be adjusted on the same basis, giving a Nil impact on profit, and duty arises only upon removal.
  • Delhi High Court: Reversed the CIT(A) and ITAT orders, holding that Section 145A overrides other provisions, and erroneously assumed that the goods were “admittedly removed”.

2. Key Legal Issues & Supreme Court Findings

A. Erroneous Factual Finding by the High Court

• Finding: The High Court erred fundamentally by proceeding on the premise that the goods were “admittedly removed”.
• Reasoning: The records, including the AO’s Remand Report and the findings of CIT(A) and ITAT, explicitly confirmed that the uncleared closing stock remained inside the assessee’s bonded warehouse. The High Court’s core premise for duty payability was contrary to the record.

B. Interplay Between Section 43B and Section 145A

• Finding: Section 43B regulates disallowances of unpaid statutory liabilities claimed as deductions/expenses. It cannot be invoked to disallow an amount that was never claimed as an expense or debited to the P&L Account.
• Reasoning:
  1. Under Section 43B, statutory payments are allowable as deductions in the year paid (or if paid before the tax return filing date for accrued liabilities).
  2. If an assessee routes indirect taxes through the balance sheet without charging them to the P&L Account (exclusive method under AS-2) and does not claim any deduction for unaccrued excise duty, there is no “allowance” or “deduction” to disallow.
  3. Disallowing an amount that the assessee never claimed as a deduction/allowance in its books of account is legally impermissible under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

C. Impact of Valuation on Taxable Income

• Finding: When opening and closing stocks are valued consistently by inclusive tax adjustments under Section 145A, the net effect on the assessee’s profitability is Nil.
• Reasoning: The Revenue failed to demonstrate how the books of account or return of income were negatively impacted or how taxable income was reduced by the entry. The Tax Auditor had duly certified a Nil impact on profitability. Relying on the Bombay High Court precedent (CIT v. Loknete Balasaheb Desai S.S.K. Ltd.), the Court affirmed that unaccrued excise duty on bonded closing stock cannot enhance taxable income.

3. Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the AO’s addition was illegal and that the High Court erred in reversing the well-reasoned orders of the CIT(A) and ITAT. The High Court judgment was set aside, and the assessee’s Civil Appeal was allowed. All pending applications were disposed of.

2026 INSC 1162

M/s. Lakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-II (D.O.J. 27.10.2026)

2026 INSC 1162 click here to view full text of judgment