9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Assessment of accrued interest on "sticky advances" for the assessment year 1978-79. 2. Dispute regarding the quantum of interest brought to tax. 3. Taxability of a specific amount transferred from the suspense account to the profit and loss account. 4. Rejection of reference applications under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act. Analysis: The High Court of Allahabad addressed two connected applications concerning the assessment year 1978-79, involving the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the Interest-tax Act. The assessee, a bank, had maintained accounts on a mercantile basis previously. In the relevant year, the assessee did not calculate accrued interest on "sticky advances," leading the Income-tax Officer to estimate it at Rs. 15 lakhs and include it in the tax assessment. In the first appeal, the assessee raised three contentions. Firstly, they argued against taxing the accrued interest on "sticky loans," citing doubts about recovering the principal amount. However, this contention was dismissed based on a Supreme Court decision. Secondly, the assessee disputed the quantum of interest taxed, leading to a remittance for fresh adjudication. Lastly, a specific amount previously taxed and transferred was contested, with the appellate authority directing the Assessing Officer to await a final decision from higher authorities before allowing a deduction. Upon second appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the Commissioner's decision was upheld. The assessee sought a reference under section 256(1) of the Act, which was rejected, prompting the current applications. However, the High Court found no statable question of law warranting a reference to the Tribunal. The court noted that the issue of tax liability on "sticky advances" interest was settled by precedent and that proposed questions were academic. Additionally, questions on the quantum of interest and the disputed amount did not arise from the Tribunal's order. Consequently, the court deemed both reference applications meritless and rejected them, along with imposing costs. The judgment emphasized the lack of substance in the applications and the absence of grounds for further adjudication on the issues raised by the assessee.
|
