9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the Tribunal in confirming the disallowance of bonus on a new ground not made by lower authorities. 2. Justification of the Tribunal in permitting the Revenue to raise a new ground regarding allowance of bonus for the first time in appeal and holding that the liability to bonus was not referable to the year under reference. Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of the Tribunal in Confirming Disallowance of Bonus on a New Ground: The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of a bonus amount of Rs. 15,178 on a new ground not raised by the lower authorities. The primary contention was whether the bonus payment, sanctioned at 50% of the salary during a board meeting on June 5, 1974, could be deducted as an expense for the accounting year ending March 31, 1974. The Tribunal, after examining the details, found that the bonus payment exceeded the statutory limit of 20% and was not covered by any agreement or authorized by service conditions. The Tribunal held that there was no statutory or contractual obligation to pay the bonus during the relevant year, and the liability only arose after the board's decision post the accounting year. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance, agreeing with the lower authorities that the excess payment was not incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. 2. Justification of the Tribunal in Permitting the Revenue to Raise a New Ground: The Tribunal permitted the Revenue to raise a new ground regarding the allowance of the bonus for the first time in appeal. The Revenue argued that the liability to pay the bonus did not exist during the relevant accounting year and only arose after the board's decision on June 5, 1974. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the liability to pay the bonus was not crystallized during the accounting year ending March 31, 1974. The Tribunal referenced the principle laid down in CWT v. Sayaji Mills Ltd. [1974] 94 ITR 54, concluding that the liability to pay the bonus only came into existence when the board decided on the payment, which was after the close of the accounting year. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the deduction for the bonus should not have been allowed for the year under appeal. Additional Considerations: The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties. The assessee's counsel argued that the crystallized liability existed during the relevant previous year, citing Supreme Court decisions in CIT v. A. Krishnaswami Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 122 and Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53. However, the Tribunal found these references unhelpful, as the real question was whether the bonus sanctioned post the accounting year could be deducted for that year. The Tribunal held that allowing such deductions would lead to unforeseen complications and that the liability to pay the higher bonus rate was not an existing liability during the relevant year. Conclusion: The Tribunal was justified in confirming the disallowance of the bonus amount and in permitting the Revenue to raise a new ground regarding the allowance of the bonus. The liability to pay the bonus was not referable to the year under reference, and the Tribunal's decision was affirmed. The questions referred to the High Court were answered in the affirmative, against the assessee, and in favor of the Revenue.
|
