9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (3) TMI 150 - HC - Income TaxBrought forward and Setoff of business expenditure and business loss against Income from House Property when business has already closed in earlier year - Section 71 - Held That - Total amount of business loss is Rs. 17,45,392. Out of the same, Rs. 7,64,562 is disallowed against the assessee and the balance would be set off against the income from house property. - Tribunal has rightly appreciated the law and issue and has found that even though there was a temporary break, the assessee continued the business in dis- tributorship and also maintained the establishment, thereby incurred the expenditure which were wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. This finding of the Tribunal is in tune with the order of the Division Bench in CIT v. S. S. M. Ahmed Hussain (1986 -TMI - 26098 - MADRAS High Court) Purchase of aluminum - Delayed Payment - Assessee contended TDS deducted and amount remitted to goverment account - Interest Expenditure of Rs 7,64,562 - Disallowance made Held That - There is also no material to show that there was any compromise between the assessee and Nalco as to the payment of interest and by virtue of the agreement, paid the interest during the accounting year. No material were brought on record. - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner was not justified in revising the assessment order under section 263. 2. Whether business expenditure and business loss can be set off against the income from house property after the closure of the business in the earlier years. Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of Revising the Assessment Order under Section 263: The Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) exercised jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, revising the assessment order for the assessee, who had stopped its business of manufacturing and selling aluminium conductors and started distributorship of items from a sister company. The CIT found that the assessee had not revived the old business and thus was not entitled to the benefits under section 71. The CIT also noted that the interest expenditure of Rs. 7,64,562 was not pertinent to the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the CIT deemed the original assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, and directed the Assessing Officer to disallow the claims. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) overturned the CIT's revisionary order, stating that the CIT was not justified in revising the assessment order. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the assessee, having closed its business, was not entitled to set off business expenditure and loss against income from house property. The Tribunal's order was contended to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The High Court considered the judgment in CIT v. S. S. M. Ahmed Hussain and Standard Refinery and Distillery Ltd. v. CIT, which emphasized the need for interconnection, interdependence, and unity of control between business activities to claim benefits under section 71. The court found that the assessee's new business of distributing aluminium foils was interconnected with the old business of manufacturing and selling conductors. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly concluded that the assessee continued its business activities, justifying the set-off of business expenditure and loss. 2. Set-off of Business Expenditure and Business Loss Against Income from House Property: The CIT disallowed the interest expenditure of Rs. 7,64,562, asserting that the liability accrued in earlier years and not in the relevant assessment year. The assessee argued that the interest payment was accrued during the accounting year due to TDS deduction and remittance to the Government account. However, the court found no material evidence supporting the accrual of interest liability in the relevant year. The court upheld the CIT's decision to disallow the interest expenditure, validating the revision under section 263 to this extent. The High Court partially allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee regarding the set-off of business loss against income from house property, excluding the disallowed interest expenditure. The court concluded that the business loss of Rs. 17,45,392, excluding Rs. 7,64,562, should be set off against the income from house property. This decision was based on the merits of the case, considering the assessment year 2001-02, without remanding the matter to the Tribunal. Conclusion: - The first substantial question of law was answered in favor of the Revenue, validating the CIT's jurisdiction to revise the assessment order under section 263. - The second substantial question of law was answered partly in favor of the assessee and partly in favor of the Revenue, allowing the set-off of business loss against income from house property, excluding the disallowed interest expenditure of Rs. 7,64,562. - The High Court disposed of the tax case appeal on these terms, with no order as to costs.
|
