9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of revised return filed by the appellant. 2. Adoption of cash basis accounting over mercantile system. 3. Disallowance of interest amount on advances made to sister companies. Issue 1: Validity of revised return The assessee disclosed an income of Rs. 1,50,210 in the original return but later filed a revised return claiming a loss of Rs. 57,34,870 due to certain circumstances. The Assessing Officer considered the revised return invalid, leading to a dispute. The Appellate Authority set aside the assessment and remitted it back to the Assessing Officer to establish the diversion of funds to sister concerns. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this approach, stating that the change in accounting method is the assessee's discretion unless mala fide intentions are proven. The Tribunal found the disallowance unjustified, especially since the assessing authority failed to establish a nexus between the borrowed funds and the transfer to sister concerns. The Tribunal held that each assessment year should be considered independently based on facts and circumstances, ultimately allowing the assessee's appeal. Issue 2: Adoption of cash basis accounting The Appellate Authority and the Tribunal emphasized that the assessee has the right to change its accounting system from mercantile to cash basis, provided there are valid reasons. The Tribunal highlighted that the change in accounting method should be based on business expediency and not solely on revenue considerations. The Tribunal referenced legal precedents and circulars to support the assessee's claim for switching accounting methods without facing denial, especially in cases involving business reputation and credibility protection. Issue 3: Disallowance of interest on advances to sister companies The dispute arose from the disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 22,27,489 on advances made by the assessee to sister companies. The Assessing Officer believed the interest should be assessed on an accrual basis, but the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal found the disallowance unjustified. They noted that the assessing authority failed to establish a diversion of funds or a nexus between borrowed funds and transfers to sister concerns. The Tribunal reversed the Appellate Authority's decision, emphasizing that the disallowance was not justified given the nature of the assessee's business and the lack of concrete evidence linking the funds. The Tribunal ultimately allowed the assessee's appeal, overturning the disallowance of interest on the advances made to sister companies.
|
