9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Reopening of assessment under section 147(a) of the Act, disallowance of commission payment to Indira Chemicals (P) Ltd., genuineness of commission payment, jurisdictional aspect of reopening, business expenditure deduction.
Analysis: 1. The appeal raised concerns regarding the reopening of the assessment under section 147(a) of the Act. The AO reopened the assessment for the year 1980-81 based on the opinion that the commission payment was not allowable as a deduction. The AO found discrepancies in the entries related to commission payment and concluded that the payment was not genuine, leading to the reassessment. The CIT(A) upheld the reopening despite the actual payment of commission. The counsel for the assessee argued that the reopening was a mere change of opinion and should be quashed. The Tribunal found that the AO's decision to reopen was indeed a change of opinion and lacked sufficient grounds, thus ruling in favor of the assessee and quashing the assessment proceedings. 2. The dispute centered around the disallowance of the commission payment to Indira Chemicals (P) Ltd. The AO questioned the genuineness of the payment, citing discrepancies in the documentation provided. The assessee contended that the commission was paid as per an agreement dated March 15, 1979, where 50% of the commission was to be paid to Indira Chemicals (P) Ltd. The Tribunal examined the agreement and the circumstances surrounding the payment, concluding that the payment was a legitimate business expense incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The Tribunal upheld the claim of the assessee, allowing the commission payment as a deduction in computing the income from business. 3. The jurisdictional aspect of the reopening was also scrutinized by the Tribunal. It was noted that this was the first assessment of the firm, and the AO decided to reopen based on developments during the assessment for the year 1982-83. The Tribunal observed that the AO's decision to reopen was a result of a change of opinion and not due to any new material or facts. The Tribunal emphasized that the tool of reopening assessments should be used sparingly and only when necessary circumstances are evident. As the reopening was deemed a change of opinion without substantial grounds, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee and quashed the assessment proceedings for the year 1980-81. The Tribunal also allowed the appeal for the year 1983-84 concerning the commission payment issue. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals for both assessment years, rejecting the disallowance of commission payment and quashing the assessment proceedings for the year 1980-81 due to a lack of jurisdiction in the reopening.
|
