9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of Rs. 6,000 disallowed as manufacturing expenses. 2. Disallowance of Rs. 49,436 related to interest on amounts withdrawn by partners. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Rs. 6,000 Disallowed as Manufacturing Expenses: The first ground of appeal by the revenue concerns the deletion of Rs. 6,000. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) had added Rs. 6,000 to the assessment, disallowing manufacturing expenses on account of possible leakage. The ITO noted that the manufacturing expenses of rice milling per quintal were higher than in the previous year, and the explanation provided by the assessee was not found acceptable. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who found no justification for the disallowance and deleted the addition. The revenue contended that the CIT(A)'s basis for deletion was vague and unacceptable, as it was unclear how the CIT(A) worked out the extra cost vis-a-vis the expenses for production of rice per quintal. After considering the findings and submissions, it was concluded that the addition was rightly deleted by the CIT(A), and no interference was called for. 2. Disallowance of Rs. 49,436 Related to Interest on Amounts Withdrawn by Partners: The second issue pertains to the disallowance of Rs. 49,436, which was deleted by the CIT(A). The ITO noted that substantial amounts were transferred from the capital accounts of partners to other firms, and the interest debited to the accounts was disallowed as the money withdrawn by the partners was not utilized for earning profit by the firm. The assessee argued that the interest payments were allowed on the amounts standing in the credits of those firms till the end of the previous year, and the transfers were made for specific reasons, including a failed attempt to install a rice mill. The CIT(A) found that the funds advanced to the two firms represented the partners' personal money and not the assessee firm's funds. It was concluded that section 40(b) would not be applicable, and for any disallowance under section 36(1)(iii), it must be shown that the capital borrowed on which interest was paid had been diverted for non-business purposes. The CIT(A) observed that the net effect of the transactions was that the assessee firm substituted one set of creditors by another to reduce tax liability and deleted the disallowance. The revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in his direction, emphasizing that the interest was paid to partners through the said two firms to circumvent section 40(b). The revenue cited various decisions, including McDowell and Co. Ltd. v. CTO, to support their contention that the borrowings and transfers were part of a colorable scheme to reduce tax liability. The assessee's counsel countered that section 40(b) was not applicable, and the borrowings were for business purposes only. The tribunal reviewed the orders and submissions, noting that the CIT(A) found the sums advanced to the two firms represented transfers from the capital accounts of the partners, who had adequate credit balances. It was concluded that the amounts belonged to the assessee firm as its capital, and the book entries transferring amounts from the capital accounts of the partners to the two firms did not change the situation. The tribunal emphasized that book entries are not conclusive, and the substance of the transaction must be considered. It was found that the loans shown as taken by the assessee from the two firms were not genuine, as the same money came back to the assessee through book entries. In conclusion, the tribunal held that the disallowance of Rs. 49,436 was rightly made by the ITO, and the CIT(A) erred in deleting the amount. The order of the CIT(A) was reversed, and the ITO's order was restored. Judgment: The appeal is partly allowed, with the deletion of Rs. 6,000 upheld and the disallowance of Rs. 49,436 restored.
|
