9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in confirming the order of the Income-tax Officer reopening the case under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1958-59? Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: The case involved a dispute regarding the reassessment for the assessment year 1958-59 of a limited company engaged in the manufacture of jute products. The company had purchased machinery from a German firm in 1957. Subsequently, a settlement was reached in 1961 between the company and the suppliers due to unsatisfactory performance of the machinery. The settlement amount was received by the company in 1962 and 1963, which was credited to the machinery account. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) reopened the assessment under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, treating the settlement amount as a reduction in the price of the machinery. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) confirmed the ITO's action, leading to the company filing a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal initially dismissed the appeal but later restored it for fresh hearing. The learned Accountant Member and the Judicial Member had differing opinions on the matter. The Accountant Member extensively detailed the facts and arguments but did not accept the company's appeal. In contrast, the Judicial Member, in a shorter order, supported the company's contention that the reassessment under section 147(a) was misconceived. The company's representative argued that the settlement amount was compensation for loss of production, not a reduction in the machinery's price. Referring to legal provisions and precedents, the representative contended that the reassessment was unwarranted as the company had not withheld any material particulars relevant to the assessment year 1958-59. After considering the submissions, the third member agreed with the Judicial Member's view. It was held that the settlement amount was not a price reduction but compensation for breach of warranty, accruing to the company only in 1961. Therefore, the company had not provided inaccurate or withheld material particulars for the assessment year 1958-59. The question referred was answered in the negative, supporting the Judicial Member's perspective. The case was remanded to the Bench for final disposal based on the discussion and conclusion provided.
|
