9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against CIT's order setting aside completed assessment for assessment year 1979-80 due to allowance of certain deductions without considering s. 37(3A) of IT Act 1961 regarding advertisement expenses. Determination of whether chit gift expenses constitute sales promotion expenditure or a method to raise working capital. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the CIT's order setting aside the completed assessment for the assessment year 1979-80 due to the ITO allowing certain deductions without considering the provisions of s. 37(3A) of the IT Act 1961 regarding advertisement expenses exceeding a specified limit. The CIT held that chit gift expenses were not sales promotion expenditure but a method to raise working capital, leading to the assessment being set aside for fresh assessment. The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the scheme, which involved monthly subscriptions for chit members to purchase gold jewellery or silver articles after a specified period through a draw system. The Tribunal determined that the scheme was primarily a method to raise capital rather than sales promotion, as the main motive was to provide interest-free working capital to the assessee, not solely to promote sales. The Tribunal further examined the details of the scheme, noting that the majority of sales occurred after a significant period, and members had to pay the full market value before purchasing articles. The Tribunal emphasized that the scheme did not offer significant incentives or inducements typically associated with sales promotion schemes. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted that the scheme's design did not align with traditional sales promotion practices, as purchasers were not aware of the specific articles they would purchase after the subscription period. The Tribunal also referenced a previous decision by the Tribunal's 'D' Bench in a similar case, where a scheme involving stainless steel and aluminum vessels was not considered a sales promotion scheme. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the chit gift expenses did not constitute sales promotion expenditure as determined by the CIT. The Tribunal criticized the CIT's inference as a "perverse inference" and held that there were no grounds to support the classification of the expenses as sales promotion. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, canceling the CIT's order and reinstating the original assessment.
|
