9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 431 - HC - Income TaxRevision u/s 264 - Disallowance of proportionate interest borne by the petitioner on the amount paid to Mrs.Thillaikarasi on the ground that the payment made to Mrs.Thillaikarasi was not connected with the business of the petitioner and therefore was not a business expenditure - HELD THAT - As evident that the petitioner had borrowed capital from the bank and paid amounts the said Mrs.Thillaikarasi contrary to the memorandum and articles of association of the petitioner company. The amount that was paid to Mrs.Thillaikarasi was not a business expenditure. Therefore, the interest paid thereon out of the borrowed capital also cannot be allowed to be written off as business expenditure. Therefore I do not find any merits in the present writ petition. The first respondent Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has rightly rejected the Application filed under 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide the imugned order. The scope of revision under 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is limited and therefore cannot be interfered. Scope of revision under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be abused as a substitute to get over an order of assessment passed second respondent without filing an appeal. Nothing to stopped the petitioner from filing a statutory appeal in time before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). No merits in the present writ petition.
Issues:
1. Dismissal of application under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. 2. Disallowance of claimed business expenditure related to borrowed amounts paid to Mrs. Thillaikarasi. 3. Interpretation of the scope of revision under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue 1: Dismissal of Application under Section 264: The petitioner filed a writ petition against the impugned order dated 22.3.2018 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent rejected the application filed by the petitioner under section 264 against the assessment order dated 31.12.2015 for the assessment year 2013-14. The respondent contended that the petitioner should have filed a statutory appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in time if aggrieved by the assessment order. The court upheld the respondent's decision, stating that the scope of revision under section 264 is limited and cannot be interfered with. Issue 2: Disallowance of Business Expenditure: The petitioner claimed business expenditure on interest paid on borrowed amounts to Mrs. Thillaikarasi, which was disallowed by the second respondent in the assessment order dated 31.12.2015. The petitioner argued that the interest was related to the main activity of developing a software technology park. However, the court found that the payment to Mrs. Thillaikarasi was not a business expenditure as per the petitioner company's memorandum and articles of association. Therefore, the interest paid from borrowed capital could not be allowed as a business expenditure. Consequently, the court upheld the disallowance of the claimed expenditure. Issue 3: Scope of Revision under Section 264: The court emphasized that the scope of revision under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be misused as a substitute for filing an appeal. The petitioner's failure to file a statutory appeal in time before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cannot be circumvented through a revision application. The court reiterated that the scope of revision is limited and cannot be abused. As a result, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner had the opportunity to file a statutory appeal but failed to do so, and therefore, the revision application was rightly rejected. In conclusion, the High Court of Madras upheld the dismissal of the application under section 264, the disallowance of the claimed business expenditure, and clarified the limited scope of revision under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
|
