Issues Involved: The judgment involves the issue of whether interest and remuneration paid to partners should be separately added to the income already estimated and assessed from contracts.
Summary:
Issue 1: Addition of Interest and Remuneration to Assessed Income The assessee, a registered firm engaged in contract business, had its income estimated by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under section 145 due to rejected books. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) added a specific amount representing interest and salary paid to partners under section 263, following a Tribunal decision. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order based on a previous case precedent. The question arose regarding the correctness of separately adding this amount to the estimated income.
Issue 2: Legal Interpretation of Estimation and Deductions The counsel for the assessee cited a court decision stating that rejected books cannot be relied upon for adding unexplained cash credits. The Revenue's standing counsel argued that under section 40(b), interest paid to partners should be disallowed as it is considered payment to oneself. The Special Bench upheld this addition based on the distinction between profit earned with own funds and borrowed capital.
Issue 3: Application of Income Tax Act Provisions Section 29 of the Income Tax Act outlines the computation of business income, with section 40 providing for specific disallowances. When estimating income under section 145, all deductions under section 29 are deemed to have been considered. The court highlighted the difference between profit earned with own versus borrowed capital and questioned the applicability of disallowances like wealth tax under section 40 after estimation.
In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that relying on rejected books to add back specific items was not permissible. The court found the Revenue's argument regarding section 40(b) disallowances post-estimation to be untenable. Therefore, the question of separately adding interest and remuneration to the estimated income was answered in the negative, favoring the assessee.
9911796707
