1981 (1) TMI 38 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Disallowance of interest on hundi loans.
2. Disallowance of commission paid for obtaining hundi loans.
3. Disallowance of stamp charges for obtaining hundi loans.
4. Imposition of penalties under section 271(1)(c) for assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64, and 1964-65.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of Interest on Hundi Loans

The Tribunal disallowed the interest claimed by the assessee on hundi loans for the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64, and 1964-65. The assessee had disclosed these loans under voluntary disclosure schemes, declaring them as bogus. The Tribunal held that since the loans were bogus, the interest paid on them was not allowable as a deduction. The Court analyzed the correspondence and agreements between the assessee and the Income Tax Department, concluding that the disclosed amounts, including interest, were part of a settlement agreement covering all borrowings up to Samvat year 2020. Therefore, the disallowance of interest was not justified.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Commission Paid for Obtaining Hundi Loans

The Tribunal also disallowed the commission paid by the assessee to obtain hundi loans for the same assessment years. The Court reiterated that the amounts disclosed under the voluntary disclosure schemes included all aspects of the hundi loans, including commissions. Since the settlement covered all borrowings, the disallowance of commission was also not justified.

Issue 3: Disallowance of Stamp Charges for Obtaining Hundi Loans

Similarly, the Tribunal disallowed the stamp charges incurred for obtaining hundi loans. The Court held that these charges were part of the overall settlement agreement between the assessee and the Income Tax Department. Therefore, the disallowance of stamp charges was not justified.

Issue 4: Imposition of Penalties under Section 271(1)(c)

The Tribunal upheld the imposition of penalties under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment years in question. The Court, however, found that since the entire matter of borrowings, including interest, commission, and stamp charges, was settled under the voluntary disclosure schemes, the imposition of penalties was not warranted. The Court emphasized that the settlement agreement precluded any further inquiry or penalties related to the disclosed amounts.

Conclusion:

The Court answered all four questions in the negative, in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. The disallowances of interest, commission, and stamp charges, as well as the imposition of penalties, were deemed unjustified based on the settlement agreements under the voluntary disclosure schemes. The Commissioner was ordered to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.