9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the claim for deduction of 40% out of Incentive Bonus received by the Development Officer of LIC could be disallowed by way of 'prima facie' adjustment under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Nature of Incentive Bonus: The primary issue revolves around whether the incentive bonus received by a Development Officer of LIC constitutes part of the salary under section 17 of the Income-tax Act. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of K.A. Choudary and B. Chinnaiah had already determined that incentive bonus forms part of the salary. This interpretation was further supported by the Orissa High Court in CIT v. Govind Chandra Pani. 2. Deductibility of Expenses: The assessee claimed a deduction of 40% of the incentive bonus towards expenses incurred in earning the incentive bonus. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this deduction, relying on the decision in K.A. Choudary, which held that no deductions other than those specified under section 16(i) are permissible from salary income. This stance was upheld in the subsequent decision of B. Chinnaiah, which reaffirmed that incentive bonus is part of salary and no additional deductions are allowed. 3. Prima Facie Adjustments under Section 143(1)(a): The core of the dispute is whether the AO was justified in making a prima facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a) to disallow the claimed deduction. The Tribunal noted that the scope of adjustments under this section is limited to clear and apparent mistakes, akin to the rectification powers under section 154. The Tribunal cited multiple judgments, including Khatau Junkar Ltd v. K.S. Pathania and Modern Fibotex India Ltd v. Dy. CIT, which held that debatable issues cannot be decided at the intimation stage under section 143(1)(a). 4. Historical Tribunal Decisions: The Tribunal reviewed several past decisions, including I.D. Gupta, Jitendra V. Mohan, and Kiranbhai H. Sheelath, where it was consistently held that the net amount of incentive bonus (after deducting expenses) should be considered as salary. These decisions applied the principle of real income, as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Badridas Daga v. CIT, to salary income, suggesting that the expenses incurred to earn the incentive bonus should be deducted at the starting point itself under section 15. 5. Debatable Nature of the Issue: The Tribunal emphasized that the issue of whether the net incentive bonus should be considered as salary was highly debatable, especially given the conflicting decisions from various Benches of the Tribunal and the pending SLP before the Supreme Court. It was noted that the matter involved substantial points of law and could not be resolved through prima facie adjustments. 6. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer: The Tribunal concluded that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction under section 143(1)(a) by making the prima facie adjustment to disallow the deduction. The Tribunal held that the AO should have issued a notice under section 143(2) and completed the assessment in a regular manner, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. 7. Conclusion and Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the impugned addition, observing that the issue was highly debatable and did not fall within the purview of section 143(1)(a). Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed, affirming that the AO was not justified in making the prima facie adjustment to disallow the deduction claimed by the assessee. Final Judgment: The appeal is dismissed, and the assessee's claim for deduction of 40% of the incentive bonus towards expenses is upheld. The AO's prima facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a) is deemed inappropriate for such a debatable issue.
|
