1982 (5) TMI 75 - AT - Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal clarifies Income Tax Act: Section 40(c) for individuals only, not entities. Ruling on assessment proceedings under section 147(b).

Income-Tax Officer. Versus Alkali And Chemical Corporation Of India Limited.

The Appellate Tribunal upheld that section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applies only to natural persons, not juridical persons. The Tribunal also ... Bank Deposits, Interest Income, Interest On Securities, Provident Fund, Providing Credit Facilities Issues:1. Interpretation of section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding applicability to natural person or juridical person.2. Validity of reopening assessment proceedings under section 147(b) based on change of opinion.Analysis:1. The appellant-revenue challenged the first appellate order regarding the interpretation of section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, contending that it applies only to a natural person and not a juridical person. The original assessment was reopened due to disallowable expenditure under section 40(c) related to payments made to a holding company. The appellant argued that the provision only applies to natural persons, not corporate bodies. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) quashed the assessment order, citing precedents and holding that section 40(c) is applicable only to natural persons, not artificial juridical persons like companies or firms. The appellant-revenue disputed this interpretation, emphasizing that the word 'person' in section 40(c) includes artificial juridical persons as per section 2(31) of the Act.2. The second issue involved the validity of reopening assessment proceedings under section 147(b) based on a change of opinion by the Income Tax Officer (ITO). The appellant contended that all primary facts were disclosed during the original assessment, and there was no new information leading to income escaping assessment. The ITO's decision to reopen the assessment was challenged as a mere change of opinion without valid grounds. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the appellant's arguments, stating that the ITO had no justification for initiating the reopening proceedings based on a change of opinion. Precedents were cited to support the position that the ITO's actions were not warranted in this case.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the first appellate order, confirming that section 40(c) applies only to natural persons and not juridical persons. Additionally, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, ruling that the ITO's decision to reopen the assessment under section 147(b) was unjustified due to a mere change of opinion without new information leading to income escaping assessment. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the legal interpretations and precedents supporting the decisions on both issues raised in the appeal.