9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of expenditure incurred on Delhi flat. 2. Disallowance of salary paid to Shri Harishchand at registered office at Delhi. 3. Disallowance of interest calculated on compound interest basis. Issue 1: Disallowance of Expenditure Incurred on Delhi Flat The first common ground relates to the disallowance of the expenditure incurred on a Delhi flat. The assessee had taken flat No. B-168 in Defence Colony, New Delhi, for holding the meeting of the directors and claimed rent and other maintenance charges. The ITO rejected the claim, relying on past history where the claim was rejected up to the Tribunal stage on the ground of insufficient evidence for business use. However, for the years under appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the claim, observing that notices for holding board meetings were given, proving business use. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals), noting the evidence produced by the assessee and the improbability of personal use by the directors. Thus, the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) were upheld on this issue. Issue 2: Disallowance of Salary Paid to Shri Harishchand This issue pertains to the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. The ground relates to the disallowance of the salary paid to Shri Harishchand, who attended to the registered office of the assessee-company at Hauz Khas, New Delhi. Although not a regular employee, Shri Harishchand received the dak of the company and other papers, for which he was paid a meager amount. The Tribunal found no reason to disbelieve the assessee's claim, noting that Shri Harishchand rendered actual services. Therefore, the payment was deemed connected with the business and allowable, and the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order was upheld. Issue 3: Disallowance of Interest Calculated on Compound Interest Basis The third issue involves the disallowance of interest calculated on a compound interest system. The ITO calculated compound interest based on a seized paper (No. 107) showing yearwise accrued interest on loans to Citric India Ltd. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the ITO to recompute the interest on a simple interest basis, relying on a previous Tribunal order which found no evidence of compound interest being charged and upheld the original agreement of 12% simple interest. However, the Accountant Member disagreed, emphasizing the evidentiary value of the seized document under section 132(4A) of the Act, which presumes the contents of seized documents to be true unless rebutted. He argued that the document indicated compound interest calculations and should override the account book entries. Consequently, he suggested reversing the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and restoring the ITO's calculations. Due to differing opinions, the matter was referred to a Third Member. The Third Member agreed with the Judicial Member, concluding that there was no agreement to charge compound interest and the seized document did not constitute a supplementary agreement. Thus, the Tribunal held that no compound interest was charged, and the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order was upheld. Conclusion: As per the majority opinion, it was held that there was no agreement between the parties to charge compound interest and that no compound interest was, in fact, charged by the assessee-company from the debtor-company. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed.
|
