1985 (9) TMI 26 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues: Assessment of income, deduction claims, appeal to Tribunal, questions of law under Income Tax Act.

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to an assessment year where the assessee initially declared an income of Rs. 69,78,040, which was later revised to Rs. 69,74,066. During the assessment proceedings, various deductions claimed by the assessee were disallowed by the Income-tax Officer, leading to heavy additions on account of alleged inflation in purchase, costs, and deflation of sales. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) provided partial relief, prompting both the Revenue and the assessee to file appeals before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and granted further relief to the assessee. Subsequently, the Revenue sought to refer specific questions of law to the High Court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal initially declined the application, leading the Revenue to approach the High Court for a mandamus under section 256(2) of the Act.

The High Court noted that certain questions had become infructuous due to a rectification order by the Tribunal. However, it was established that other questions raised were indeed questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order. The Court further analyzed the contentions regarding the allowance of deductions under various sections of the Income Tax Act and the treatment of specific expenses related to the assessee's business activities.

In particular, the Court addressed the issue of whether certain deductions were rightly allowed by the Tribunal, especially in cases where the expenses were not directly linked to specific activities mentioned in the Act. The Court also examined the treatment of the assessee's claim for leave with wages, emphasizing the distinction between ascertained and contingent liabilities. Ultimately, the Court found that the questions framed by the Revenue were indeed questions of law and directed the Tribunal to refer them for consideration, highlighting that the Tribunal's view on the merits of the controversy should not impede the referral process.