TMI Blog1989 (2) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not attracted ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,72,953 in the gross profits of the assessee without making a proper investigation of various facts placed by the Revenue before it ?" The relevant facts are best narrated in the words of the Division Bench in Saligram's case [1984] 148 ITR 302 (P H) : "The assessee, a registered firm, derives income from property, manufacture and sale of woollen yarn, shawls and woollen fabrics, etc. The head office of the firm is styled as 'Messrs. Saligram Prem Nath' and one of its branches is styled as 'Supreme Woollen Mills'. Separate accounts are maintained for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the wastage at 14.50% was excessive. In support of his contention that the shortage in this year was excessive, learned departmental representative relied upon the following documents; (i) Letter dated March 23, 1972, from the Assistant Director, Ministry of Commerce, Bombay, addressed to the Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi. (ii) Letter dated August 25, 1969, from Messrs. G. M. Worsted Spinning Mills, Faridabad, addressed to Messrs. Bharat Hosiery Manufacturers Association, Ludhiana. (iii) Letter No. 14298, dated August 22, 1969, from Messrs. Oriental Carpet Manufacturers (India) Pvt. Ltd. to the President, Hosiery Industry Federation, Ludhiana. (iv) Letter dated May 22, 1969, from Oriental Carpet Manufacturers (India) Pvt. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rly, the assessee could have charged about Rs. 1 lakh. The assessee could thus charge extra profit of Rs. 4,83,089 only in yarn. The profit in wool tops and fibre would be extra. (iii) A list of rates for different counts of yarn published by D. S. Kumaria on nine different dates in the months of April, May, July, August, September, October, November and December, 1968. (iv) A statement of D. S. Kumaria recorded on February 19, 1970, by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the case of Messrs. Fatehchand and Sons, Ludhiana. This evidence was also not allowed to be relied upon by the Tribunal on the ground that the assessee had, not been given an opportunity to rebut the material contained in these documents. The Tribunal gave number ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
