TMI Blog1980 (7) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s allegedly destroyed in fire which took place on the night between 30/31st March, 1968. This was claimed for the assessment year 1968-69, relevant to the accounting period ending March 31, 1968. In this fire, besides the damage to the building, the assessee suffered a loss of stock-in-trade. Since the building and the stock-in-trade stood insured with the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi, the assessee claimed compensation for the loss suffered by it in the aforementioned fire, from the insurance company. The insurance company entrusted the case to the surveyors and assessors for the purpose of assessing the correct figure of loss for compensation purposes. The assessors, vide their report dated June 22, 1968, assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wable loss of Rs. 2,768. The Commissioner, after issuing notice and hearing the assessee by his order under s. 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter called " the Act "), dated December 5, 1973, withdrew the extra loss of Rs. 27,787 allowed to the assessee by the ITO. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, the assessee filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called " the Tribunal "). The Tribunal, after going through the records and hearing the parties, held that the order of the ITO accepting the claim of loss of Rs. 70,000 was erroneous and consequently prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and hence the Commissioner Was perfectly justified in withdrawing the excess loss allowed to the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer accepting the claim of loss at Rs. 70,000 was, therefore, definitely erroneous and consequently prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and the Commissioner of Income-tax was perfectly justified in withdrawing the excessive loss allowed to the assessee. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax and reject the contention of the assessee." After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the question of law referred to us has to be answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. The contention of Mr. H. L. Sibal, learned counsel for the assessee, that the Tribunal has refused to look to the evidence produced by the assessee to prove th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
