1990 (2) TMI 99 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order of CIT under section 263 of the IT Act regarding the assessment year 1983-84.
2. Disallowance under section 40(c) of the I.T. Act in relation to the sum paid for story and script writing.
3. Validity of the assessment order of the ITO in light of earlier decisions of the Tribunal and the Karnataka High Court.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal challenges the CIT's order under section 263 of the IT Act for the assessment year 1983-84. The CIT found the ITO's assessment order to be erroneous and directed the re-computation of taxable profits by considering a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 paid for story and script writing. The assessee contended that the payment did not fall under section 40(c) disallowance and that the assessment order was in line with previous Tribunal decisions. The CIT's order was based on the premise that the payment was to be disallowed under section 40(c). The Tribunal analyzed the facts and previous decisions to conclude that the CIT's order was erroneous, leading to the success of the assessee's appeal.

Issue 2:
The primary argument was whether the payment of Rs. 4,00,000 for story and script writing should be considered for disallowance under section 40(c) of the IT Act. The assessee argued that the payment was not in the capacity of a director but as a story and script writer, thus falling outside the purview of section 40(c). The Tribunal, after reviewing earlier decisions of the Tribunal and the Karnataka High Court, agreed with the assessee's contention. It held that the payment to the director was not in his capacity as a director, and therefore, should not be considered for disallowance under section 40(c).

Issue 3:
The Tribunal also examined the validity of the ITO's assessment order in light of previous Tribunal decisions and the Karnataka High Court judgment. The Tribunal noted that the ITO's order was based on earlier decisions, even though not explicitly mentioned in the assessment order. It was held that the CIT's finding of the assessment order being erroneous under section 263 was unfounded, as the ITO's decision was in line with established precedents. The Tribunal concluded that there was no basis for the CIT to revise the assessment order, leading to the allowance of the assessee's appeal and the vacation of the CIT's order.