9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Disallowance of expenses claimed on bonus/commission. 2. Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer under section 143(1)(a). 3. Interpretation of 'prima facie' disallowable items. Analysis: 1. The appeal addressed the disallowance of expenses claimed by an Insurance Agent on bonus/commission for the assessment year 1989-90. The Assessing Officer allowed expenses against first year's commission but disallowed the entire expenses claimed on bonus/commission. The appellant argued that the bonus/commission was an incentive granted by the LIC for securing new business beyond the minimum requirement, necessitating additional expenses. The appellant cited a letter from LIC to support the claim. The Departmental Representative contended that allowing the double claim of 50% would result in impermissible double deduction. 2. The jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under section 143(1)(a) was a crucial aspect of the appeal. The appellant argued that the Assessing Officer exceeded their jurisdiction by disallowing the deduction without proper investigation or issuing a notice under section 143(2). The appellant relied on a decision by the Bombay High Court to support their argument. The Tribunal highlighted the requirement for prima facie disallowable items to be clearly identifiable, emphasizing that debatable or arguable matters fall outside the purview of section 143(1)(a). 3. The Tribunal delved into the interpretation of 'prima facie' disallowable items, referencing a decision by the Rajasthan High Court and a Circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The Circular outlined specific instances where adjustments could be made based on information provided, emphasizing that only allowances and disallowances explicitly provided for in the IT Act, 1961 could be considered. The Tribunal concurred with the view that the Assessing Officer cannot disallow a claim without proper investigation or issuing a notice under section 143(2), as highlighted in a decision by the Delhi High Court. 4. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's argument, ruling that the Assessing Officer was not justified in disallowing the claim under section 143(1)(a) without proper investigation or issuing a notice under section 143(2). The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of due process and proper assessment procedures in determining disallowable items.
|
