1995 (11) TMI 39 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Examination of Goodwill Account by the Income-tax Officer.
2. Justification of the Tribunal's Order Upholding the Commissioner's Decision u/s 263.

Summary:

Issue 1: Examination of Goodwill Account by the Income-tax Officer
The Tribunal held that the Income-tax Officer (ITO) had not examined the goodwill account, making his order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Income-tax Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax issued a notice u/s 263 stating that the ITO failed to tax the goodwill amount of Rs. 10,75,000 credited to the partners' accounts, failed to pass an order u/s 185(1)(a), and failed to add back interest payments of Rs. 94,631 to the partners. The assessee contended that the goodwill account was scrutinized in detail and accepted, and no transfer of capital asset occurred during the assessment year in question. The Commissioner rejected this contention and directed the ITO to examine the transactions and book entries concerning the goodwill amount. The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's order but noted that the Commissioner did not assess the merits of the goodwill's taxability, only directing the ITO to consider all material facts.

Issue 2: Justification of the Tribunal's Order Upholding the Commissioner's Decision u/s 263
The court found that the ITO had indeed examined the goodwill account, as evidenced by the assessee's detailed submission to the ITO. The Commissioner and the Tribunal failed to consider relevant dates and materials, leading to an erroneous conclusion. The court emphasized that the assessment of each year is independent, and the goodwill account creation in November 1972 and the business transfer in February 1974 were outside the relevant assessment year 1974-75. The court clarified that the Commissioner's power u/s 263 is not for directing inquiries on mere suspicion but requires finding an error prejudicial to the Revenue's interests. The court also noted that no capital gain arises from self-created goodwill, referencing CIT v. B. C. Srinivasa Setty and Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT. The court concluded that the Tribunal's decision affirming the Commissioner's order was not well-founded in law.

Conclusion:
Both questions were answered in the negative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, with no order as to costs.