9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of bank guarantee commission as revenue expenditure. 2. Validity of addition made by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in the draft assessment order under section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction of Bank Guarantee Commission as Revenue Expenditure: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs. 12,605 as bank guarantee commission, treating it as revenue expenditure. The Income-tax Officer had initially disallowed this deduction, treating it as capital expenditure since the guarantee was given for the purchase of a capital asset. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the deduction, relying on the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in Addl. CIT v. Akkamba Textiles Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 294. The Tribunal upheld this view, and the Supreme Court's decisions in Addl. CIT v. Akkamamba Textiles Ltd. [1997] 227 ITR 464 and CIT v. Sivakami Mills Ltd. [1997] 227 ITR 465 confirmed that guarantee commission paid to a bank is revenue expenditure and thus an allowable deduction. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision was affirmed, answering the question in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee. 2. Validity of Addition by Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 144B: The Income-tax Officer made a draft order under section 144B and, following directions from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 144A, made enquiries into the assessee's transactions with three associated companies. The Income-tax Officer concluded that sales were made directly by the assessee to the parties, with bills issued in the names of these companies, and added Rs. 5,43,500 to the assessee's income, suspecting profit diversion. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted this addition, and the Tribunal upheld this deletion, stating that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner could not introduce new additions in the draft order. The Revenue contended that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had issued directions under section 144A(1) before the final assessment, which were not prejudicial to the assessee and did not require a hearing under the proviso to section 144A(1). The Tribunal overlooked that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had issued these directions to guide the Income-tax Officer in making further enquiries, which is permissible under section 144A(1) even after a draft order is forwarded under section 144B(4). The Tribunal's decision was based on the erroneous assumption that the addition was introduced for the first time in the draft approval under section 144B. The High Court clarified that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner retains the power to issue directions under section 144A(1) for matters not covered by the objections under section 144B(4), and such directions are not deemed prejudicial if they merely guide the lines of investigation. The Tribunal's decision to delete the addition was therefore incorrect. The High Court answered the second question in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, noting that the merits of the addition were not addressed by the Tribunal and thus not considered in this judgment. Conclusion: The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision on the deduction of the bank guarantee commission as revenue expenditure but reversed the Tribunal's decision on the addition made by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, upholding the latter's authority to issue directions under section 144A(1) during the assessment process.
|
