2002 (7) TMI 22 - HC - Income Tax

Held that Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by which he had restored the matter regarding levy of interest under section 216 to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration and rejecting the assessee s additional ground raised in this behalf Held that Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 2,500 incurred by the assessee in the preparation of the income-tax return was covered by section 80VVof the Income-tax Act and, therefore, not allowable under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Correctness of confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding levy of interest under section 216
2. Allowability of expenditure incurred in the preparation of income-tax return under section 80VV and section 37

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Tribunal referred questions regarding the correctness of confirming the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order on the levy of interest under section 216. The Commissioner directed the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to pass a speaking order, which the assessee challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's ground, stating that the order for levy of interest should have been cancelled together. The Tribunal found no reason to allow the assessee to raise this ground at that stage. A miscellaneous application was filed and rejected by the Tribunal. The High Court observed that the Assessing Officer charged interest under section 216, and the matter was sent back to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to decide afresh and provide reasons for charging interest.

Issue 2:
Regarding the expenditure incurred in the preparation of the income-tax return, the Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of the amount claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, stating that the fees paid to chartered accountants for filing returns and preparing accounts after the year-end were not for the business of the assessee. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision, noting that the fees incurred for contesting tax imposition did not relate to the business purpose, especially when only a negligible part of the fees was disallowed. The High Court found no justification to interfere with the disallowance of Rs. 2,090. Therefore, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision on the allowance of expenditure under section 80VV and section 37.

In conclusion, the High Court answered both questions in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, thereby disposing of the reference accordingly.