9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding commission payments to a specific party. 2. Consideration of additional evidence in tribunal proceedings. 3. Assessment of the relevance of evidence in determining commission payments. 4. Application of previous tribunal orders on similar issues. 5. Justification for disallowing salary payments based on affidavits. Analysis: The judgment delivered by the High Court of ALLAHABAD pertains to an application seeking reference of questions of law under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The applicant raised concerns regarding the Tribunal's decision on commission payments to Messrs. Vishwanath Balkrishna for the assessment year 1984-85. The Tribunal had based its decision on a previous order for the assessment year 1983-84, which the applicant argued was erroneous due to material differences in the facts presented. The applicant contended that the Tribunal failed to consider additional material, such as comparative sale charts and agreements, which were not available in the preceding year. The Tribunal's omission of mentioning this additional evidence was highlighted as a basis for the applicant's claim that the decision was perverse and lacked consideration of relevant material. The applicant also challenged the Tribunal's decision on salary payments to Sheo Kumar Gupta and Atul Kumar Jain, emphasizing that the issues were identical to those in the previous year where the salary had been allowed. Affidavits of both individuals were submitted, and the applicant questioned the Tribunal's justification for disallowing the salaries in the current assessment year despite considering them in the prior year. However, the counsel for the applicant informed the court that relief sought through questions related to salary payments had already been decided in favor of the assessee in a previous application, leading to the withdrawal of those questions during the proceedings. The court examined the facts of the case, noting that the assessing authority had disallowed the commission paid to Messrs. Vishwanath Balkrishna, a decision upheld in subsequent appeals. The Tribunal, relying on the previous year's order, rejected the applicant's claim for the current assessment year, deeming the facts similar. The applicant argued that the acceptance of commission payment in a prior year and the subsequent dropping of proceedings under section 147(a) for the same year should not justify disallowing the commission in subsequent years. The court emphasized the need for each assessment year to be considered independently based on the facts presented for that specific year. Regarding the evidence presented by the assessee in the form of credit and debit notes, the court found that these documents did not pertain to the relevant assessment year in question. The agreement cited by the applicant was also deemed relevant only for a portion of the assessment year. The court concluded that the evidence provided was insufficient to support the claim for commission payments to Messrs. Vishwanath Balkrishna for the year in question. Consequently, the court dismissed the application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, stating that no question of law arose from the Tribunal's order.
|
