9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Disallowance of expenditure by the company for payments made to two minor sons. 2. Reopening of income-tax assessment of an individual based on company's payments. 3. Challenge of jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. 4. Allegation of benami income and challenge to notice under section 148. 5. Examination of material to establish benami income. Analysis: 1. The case involved disallowance of expenditure by the company for payments made to two minor sons of an influential officer. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the expenditure as being for extra-commercial considerations, a decision upheld by the Tribunal and the High Court. The company claimed the payments as business expenditure, but the courts found no justification for the disallowed deduction. 2. The income-tax assessment of the individual in question was sought to be reopened based on the payments made by the company to his minor sons. The individual challenged the jurisdiction to issue the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, contending that there was no material to support the belief that the income received by his sons was actually his benami income. 3. The individual filed a writ petition challenging the notice under section 148, arguing lack of material to establish the alleged benami income. Mukherji J. upheld the petition, quashing the notice. The Revenue contended that the payments to the minor sons were suspicious, but the court found no nexus between the material and the belief of benami income. 4. The Revenue argued that the payments made by the company to the minor sons, allegedly for extra-commercial considerations, were actually intended for the individual. However, the court found that the mere disallowance of the company's deduction did not establish the individual as the real recipient of the payments. The court emphasized the need for a clear nexus between the material and the belief of benami income. 5. The court analyzed the materials collected, including the payments to the sons, the influential position of the individual in the company, and the disallowed deduction by the company. However, it concluded that these materials were insufficient to establish the individual as the true recipient of the payments. The court emphasized the importance of a valid basis for forming the belief of benami income, which was found lacking in this case. In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no material to support the belief of benami income, and no valid reason to issue the notice under section 148.
|
