2019 (4) TMI 1395 - SC - Income Tax

Recording of wrong facts reasoning by Tribunal - benefit of deduction u/s.57(iii) - whether payment was made for enlarging the control and management over - capital expenditure or revenue expenditure - whether the High Court 2017 (8) TMI 647 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the department - HELD THAT - We find that the Tribunal did not correctly appreciate as to what AO and CIT (A) held and what was their reasoning which led to their respective conclusion. Having wrongly observed about their respective reasoning and the finding, the Tribunal proceeded to examine the case and eventually reversed the order of CIT (Appeals). The High court did not notice the aforesaid observation of the Tribunal and upheld the order of the Tribunal. In such a situation like the one arising in the case and keeping in view the question involved, we are of the considered opinion that the matter deserves to be remanded to the Tribunal for deciding the appeal filed by the respondent-Company (assessee) afresh on merits because the Tribunal being the last Court of appeal on facts, its finding on the question of fact is of significance. Remanding the case is not likely to cause any prejudice to any party because the aggrieved party will have a right of appeal to the High Court and then to this Court against any adverse order. We consider, in the interest of both the parties, to remand the appeal to the Tribunal for its hearing afresh on merits in accordance with law, keeping all the issues open. We allow the appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court and the Tribunal and remand the appeal to the Tribunal for its decision afresh on merits in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observations made in the impugned order, order of the Tribunal and in this order.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against High Court judgment upholding Income Tax Appellate Tribunal order on deduction claim of payment made in civil suit settlement.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the High Court's decision upholding the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order regarding a deduction claim made by the appellant, the Commissioner of Income Tax, in relation to a payment made to Mr. G.R. Hada as part of a civil suit settlement.

2. The dispute revolved around the nature of a payment of ?3.25 crores made by the appellant, a Limited Company engaged in the manufacturing business, to Mr. G.R. Hada. The appellant claimed the payment as a revenue expenditure for running their business, while the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rejected the claim, considering it not to be "revenue expenditure."

3. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in its order dated 30.06.2003, allowed the appellant's appeal and directed the AO to grant the deduction claimed. Subsequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, leading to the special leave appeal in the Supreme Court.

4. The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments from both parties, observed discrepancies in the Tribunal's understanding of the AO and CIT (Appeals) findings. The Court noted that the Tribunal's decision to reverse the CIT (Appeals) order seemed to be based on a misinterpretation of the previous judgments.

5. Due to the Tribunal's misinterpretation and the significance of its findings as the last Court of appeal on facts, the Supreme Court decided to remand the case back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on the appeal filed by the appellant. This remand was deemed necessary to ensure a fair consideration of the matter on its merits.

6. The Supreme Court clarified that the remand would not prejudice either party, as they would retain the right to appeal further if dissatisfied with the Tribunal's decision. The Court emphasized that all issues should be kept open for consideration during the fresh hearing before the Tribunal.

7. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court and the Tribunal, and directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with the law, without being influenced by any previous observations or orders.

This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the legal judgment, highlighting the key issues, arguments, and the Supreme Court's decision to remand the case back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration.