9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Delay in filing applications under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and whether it should be condoned. Interpretation of section 256(1) regarding the necessity of filing separate applications for each assessment year. Merits of the case involving interest claimed by the assessee on borrowed capital for assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70, and 1970-71. Analysis: The judgment addressed the delay in filing applications under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court considered whether the delay should be condoned for two belated applications. Reference was made to a previous case where similar circumstances led to the delay not being condoned. The court examined the necessity of filing separate applications for each assessment year under section 256(2) and found that the delay could be condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court noted that the assessee had filed three separate applications under section 256(1), indicating awareness of the requirement for separate applications. The judgment delved into the interpretation of section 256(1) regarding the necessity of filing separate applications for each assessment year. It was argued that one application may suffice if questions of law arise for several years covered by a single order. The court considered the possibility of a bona fide error by counsel in determining the number of applications to file. The court highlighted the importance of giving the benefit of doubt to the assessee in cases of plausible explanations for delays. Regarding the merits of the case involving interest claimed on borrowed capital for the assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70, and 1970-71, the court analyzed the use of borrowed funds by the assessee. The Income-tax Officer disallowed a portion of the interest claimed as deductions due to substantial advances made to partners. The court examined the balance-sheet position of the assessee-firm, indicating that borrowed funds were used to advance interest-free loans to partners. The court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the partners were entitled to adjust losses and profits, and interest paid on borrowings for partner withdrawals could not be treated as interest on borrowed capital. In conclusion, the court declined to call for a statement of the case, as the conclusion reached by the Tribunal was considered a finding of fact rather than a question of law. The application was rejected, with no order as to costs.
|
