Income-tax Officer v. Salwan Furnishing Co
[Citation -1984-LL-1219-6]

Citation 1984-LL-1219-6
Appellant Name Income-tax Officer
Respondent Name Salwan Furnishing Co.
Court ITAT-Delhi
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 19/12/1984
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags interest under section 217 • estimate of advance tax • welfare expenses • registered firm • cross-objection • staff welfare
Bot Summary: DELHI BENCH D SALWAN FURNISHING INCOME TAX OFFICER v. CO. December 19, 1984 JUDGMENT PerKapur - The appeal is by the revenue while thecross-objection has been filed by the assessee, a resident registered firm. Therevenue is aggrieved since the learned Commissioner has, in theimpugned order, directed the ITO to charge interest from the assessee undersection 139( 8) of the Income- tax Act, 1961, treating theassessee as a registered firm and calculating on that basis and not calculatingit treating the assessee as unregistered firm. In the impugned order, thelearned Commissioner has relied on the decisions of the Hon'bleKarnataka High Court as stand reported in M. Nagappav. CIT v. MahadeshwaraLorry Service 1981 129 ITR 516 and in this view of the matter since thereis a High Court decision in favour of the assessee, we do uphold the impugnedorder on this issue and reject the revenue's ground. 2.As regards the assessee's grievance, the disallowance out of staff welfareexpenses made and sustained by the lower authorities at Rs. 800, out of claimmade at Rs. 8,137, stands deleted since there is no element of personal natureinvolved in the staff welfare expenses, vis-a-vis , theassessee-firm. 3.As regards the second grievance about charging of interest under section 217 ofthe Act, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the reasoning andconclusion arrived at by the Commissioner since he is categoricalthat 'no satisfactory evidence has been furnished' by the assessee to provethat an estimate of advance tax had been duly submitted before the ITO, asclaimed by the learned authorised representative.


DELHI BENCH D SALWAN FURNISHING INCOME TAX OFFICER v. CO. December 19, 1984 JUDGMENT PerKapur - appeal is by revenue while thecross-objection has been filed by assessee, resident registered firm. Therevenue is aggrieved since learned Commissioner (Appeals) has, in theimpugned order, directed ITO to charge interest from assessee undersection 139( 8) of Income- tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), treating theassessee as registered firm and calculating on that basis and not calculatingit treating assessee as unregistered firm. In impugned order, thelearned Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on decisions of Hon'bleKarnataka High Court as stand reported in M. Nagappav. ITO [1975] and Addl. CIT v. MahadeshwaraLorry Service [1981] 129 ITR 516 and in this view of matter since thereis High Court decision in favour of assessee, we do uphold impugnedorder on this issue and reject revenue's ground. appeal fails. 2.As regards assessee's grievance, disallowance out of staff welfareexpenses made and sustained by lower authorities at Rs. 800, out of claimmade at Rs. 8,137, stands deleted since there is no element of personal natureinvolved in staff welfare expenses, vis-a-vis , theassessee-firm. On this issue, assessee succeeds. 3.As regards second grievance about charging of interest under section 217 ofthe Act, we find ourselves in complete agreement with reasoning andconclusion arrived at by Commissioner (Appeals) since he is categoricalthat 'no satisfactory evidence has been furnished' by assessee to provethat estimate of advance tax had been duly submitted before ITO, asclaimed by learned authorised representative.Here assessee fails. cross-objection succeeds in part. *** Income-tax Officer v. Salwan Furnishing Co
Report Error