9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Period of limitation for revision of assessments under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961. 2. Alleged vagueness and mechanical nature of the order passed by the CIT. 3. Disallowance of expenses incurred on repairs and maintenance of the cinema building. 4. Disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs. 89,681. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Period of Limitation for Revision of Assessments: The CIT modified the assessments for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961. The assessee argued that the CIT's order was liable to be set aside as it was passed after the expiry of the period of two years. The assessee referred to the amendment in Section 263(2) by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, and contended that the amendment should be deemed effective from 1st April 1985. However, the Tribunal held that the amended provision of Section 263(2) came into force on 1st October 1984 and not on 1st April 1985. Since the assessments were revised on 30th March 1987, they were within the period of two years from the end of the financial year 1984-85. Thus, the argument of the assessee was dismissed. 2. Alleged Vagueness and Mechanical Nature of the Order: The assessee argued that the CIT's order was vague and mechanical, particularly pointing out the disallowance of bad debts of Rs. 89,682 for the assessment year 1981-82 instead of 1982-83. The Tribunal found that the CIT had clearly disclosed his satisfaction regarding the wrong allowance of bad debts in the year 1982-83 in his notice and order. The mention of the assessment year 1981-82 in the order was deemed a typographical mistake and did not affect the real controversy. Thus, this objection was overruled. 3. Disallowance of Expenses on Repairs and Maintenance: The assessee contended that the disallowance of expenses on repairs and maintenance of the cinema building was bad in law. The assessee pointed out that similar expenses had been allowed in previous and subsequent years. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had capitalized Rs. 1,10,500 in the assessment year 1981-82 for increasing the seating capacity and creating a new class/circle. The CIT had not pinpointed any particular item of expenditure that was of a capital nature. The Tribunal held that the assessments made by the ITO were not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. Therefore, the CIT's order on the point of capitalization of expenses was vacated. 4. Disallowance of Bad Debts: The assessee claimed bad debts of Rs. 89,681 for the assessment year 1982-83, arguing that the amounts were written off due to short or inferior quality goods sent to nine parties by its two sister concerns. The CIT held that the assessee, being a sole selling agent, was entitled only to a commission on sales and was not responsible for the quality or shortage of goods. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT, stating that the assessee's business relations with its sister concerns were that of an agent and principal, governed by the terms of the agency contract. Since the goods did not belong to the assessee, it did not suffer any loss by their non-realization. Thus, the disallowance of bad debts was justified. Conclusion: The appeal for the assessment year 1981-82 was fully allowed, while the appeal for the assessment year 1982-83 was partly allowed, vacating the CIT's order on the capitalization of expenses but upholding the disallowance of bad debts.
|
