9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (9) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing a deduction of Rs. 375 out of Rs. 1,025 for the assessment year 1977-78 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in view of the facts averred in ground No. 3 in the appeal memo before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the claim for an amount of Rs. 7,725 if at all admissible relates to the accounting year ending December 31, 1977, relevant for the assessment year 1978-79 ? " The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. It is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of titanium dioxide. We are concerned with the assessment year 1977-78 for which, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gratia payment in the sum of Rs. 3,14,377. The Appellate Tribunal also held that the amount of Rs. 7,775, the short provision of earlier years made good on account of stores, was not admissible for the instant assessment year 1977-78, but it will be relevant for the assessment year 1978-79. Similarly, the Appellate Tribunal held that, out of the sum of Rs. 1,025, "prior paid expenses", on account of printing and stationery, a sum of Rs. 375 was expended on February 3, 1976, during the accounting year and so it is a permissible deduction. It is thereafter at the instance of the Revenue that the Incometax Appellate Tribunal has referred the three questions of law, formulated hereinabove, for the decision of this court. We heard counsel. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the matter which has been laid down by the above Bench decisions of this court was not considered by the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, we decline to answer question No. 1 referred to us, but, at the same time, direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to consider whether the amount of Rs. 3,14,377, the ex gratia payment made by the assessee in excess of the amount payable under the Payment of Bonus Act, can be allowed, bearing in mind the touch-stone laid down by this court in P. Alikunju's case [1987] 166 ITR 611 and other Bench decisions referred to hereinabove. Question No. 1 is answered accordingly. It is for the Appellate Tribunal, as a final fact-finding authority, to consider all the aspects bearing on the question and should th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lier years made good for stores under "prior paid expenses" was attacked as an impermissible deduction. In paragraph 17 of the order, the Appellate Tribunal stated that the amount of Rs. 7,775 represented stores consumed on March 9, 1977, which, admittedly, is a period after the end of the relevant accounting period. Even so, the Appellate Tribunal observed that the claim, if at all admissible, relates to the accounting period ending on December 31, 1977, relevant for the assessment year 1978-79. This observation of the Appellate Tribunal is attacked as unauthorised and illegal. We should state that the said observation cannot be said to be a finding at all. It is only an observation which was unauthorised and uncalled for. The Tribunal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
