9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Adjustments made under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Applicability of section 43B regarding unpaid interest and other expenses. 3. Powers of the Assessing Officer (AO) and the appellate authorities regarding prima facie adjustments. 4. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in allowing or disallowing deductions based on subsequent evidence. Detailed Analysis: 1. Adjustments under Section 143(1)(a): The appeal by the revenue and the cross-objection by the assessee revolved around adjustments made under section 143(1)(a) amounting to Rs. 5,70,12,385. The adjustments included: - Bonus of Rs. 70,000 (not paid). - EPL, DIT Insurance, and Employer's contribution to Provident Fund of Rs. 7,055. - Interest accrued but not paid to IDBI (Rs. 3,59,51,611) and SIDBI (Rs. 2,09,83,719). The AR of the assessee argued that certain payments were made within the allowable time, and the disallowances were not justified. The DR emphasized that the deductions were prima facie inadmissible under section 43B. 2. Applicability of Section 43B: The AR referred to the Karnataka High Court decision in God Granites v. CBDT, which dealt with the deduction under section 80HHC. However, the Tribunal noted that the facts of the present case were different, and the unpaid interest to SIDBI was clearly hit by section 43B. The Tribunal concluded that the AO was entitled to make adjustments under section 143(1)(a) to enforce section 43B. The disallowances under section 43B were revised as follows: - Bonus: Rs. 8,534. - Interest on loan from SIDBI: Rs. 2,09,83,719. 3. Powers of the Assessing Officer and Appellate Authorities: The Tribunal examined the scope of prima facie adjustments under section 143(1)(a). The AO is authorized to make adjustments based on the information available in the return, accounts, or documents accompanying it. If a deduction is prima facie inadmissible, it can be disallowed at the intimation stage. However, if the AO requires further information, he must follow the procedure under section 143(2). The Tribunal cited several judgments supporting the principle that adjustments can only be made if the inadmissibility is evident from the return and accompanying documents. If proof of the claim is not furnished, the AO cannot disallow it at the intimation stage but must issue a notice under section 143(2). 4. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal: The Tribunal discussed whether it could go beyond the return, accounts, or documents while hearing an appeal against an intimation under section 143(1)(a). The Tribunal's powers are co-terminus with those of the AO, meaning it can correct wrongs committed by the AO but cannot assume jurisdiction not vested in the AO. The Third Member Order clarified that the AO was justified in making adjustments under section 143(1)(a) due to the absence of evidence of payments. The Tribunal can allow relief based on subsequent evidence if the AO could have done so during regular assessment proceedings. The Tribunal restored the adjustments for unpaid interest to SIDBI (Rs. 2,09,83,719) and unpaid bonus (Rs. 8,534), modifying the CIT(A)'s order accordingly. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the AO was justified in making prima facie adjustments under section 143(1)(a) for unpaid interest and bonus. The appellate authorities can allow relief based on subsequent evidence, aligning with the AO's powers. The Tribunal's decision resulted in partial allowance of both the departmental appeal and the cross-objection.
|
