|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 111 of 111 Records
-
1978 (6) TMI 11
Issues involved: Determination of whether a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs was deductible as an allowable expenditure under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Summary:
The case involved an assessee, a private limited company, engaged in arranging exhibition of advertisement and film shorts in cinema theatres in four southern States. The assessee entered into an agreement with another company to acquire its business of exhibiting film shorts on behalf of certain clients for a period of 9 years in exchange for a payment of Rs. 1,50,000. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee, considering the expenditure as capital in nature. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the disallowance, stating that the expenditure resulted in an enduring advantage to the business. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the payment was for acquiring a business or asset that generates income and for avoiding competition, making it capital expenditure as per legal precedents.
The assessee argued that the payment was for acquiring stock-in-trade, thus constituting revenue expenditure. However, the court noted that the agreement involved a transfer of the business itself, not just stock-in-trade, for a specified period. Citing relevant case law, the court held that any amount spent for acquiring a business or asset generating income or for avoiding competition is capital in nature. The court distinguished a previous case where expenditure for avoiding rivalry was considered revenue expenditure, as in that case, the amount was spent to acquire stock-in-trade at an advantageous price, unlike the present case where the payment was for acquiring a business with a competitive advantage.
In conclusion, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 was not deductible as an allowable expenditure. The question was answered in the affirmative against the assessee, who was directed to pay the costs of the revenue fixed at Rs. 250.
-
1978 (6) TMI 10
Issues involved: Assessment of Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. for the assessment years 1958-59 to 1964-65 under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
Judgment Summary:
Assessment of Remittances: The Income Tax Officer (ITO) considered remittances made by the assessee to its parent company as income chargeable to tax. The assessee contended that no tax deduction was required as the remittances did not constitute chargeable income. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) found the payments to be in the nature of royalty and held the assessee liable to deduct tax.
Time Barred Recovery Proceedings: The AAC found the order under s. 201(1) for recovery of tax to be time-barred under s. 231 of the Act, as recovery proceedings should have been initiated within one year from the last dates of the financial years in which defaults occurred. The Tribunal upheld this decision, confirming that the recovery proceedings initiated on 1st March, 1965, were out of time.
Nature of Proceedings under s. 201(1): The Court considered whether proceedings under s. 201(1) were recovery proceedings. The revenue argued that s. 201 did not relate to recovery, but to deduction at source. However, the Court held that s. 201 encompassed assessment, quantification of tax payable, and deeming the person in default, without requiring further action by the ITO.
Legal Precedents and Interpretation: The Court referred to legal precedents to support its interpretation of s. 201, emphasizing that failure to deduct and pay tax automatically deemed the person an assessee in default. The Court rejected the revenue's argument that the letter demanding tax payment was not a recovery proceeding, as the deeming provision in s. 201 made the person an assessee in default.
Conclusion: The Court answered the referred questions in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that no further action by the ITO was needed to deem the person in default under s. 201. The Court declined to answer a question not pressed by the assessee and clarified that its decision pertained to recovery proceedings under the Income Tax Acts, without affecting the government's right to institute a suit within the limitation period.
Additional Note: Justice Dipak Kumar Sen agreed with the judgment, and no costs were awarded.
-
1978 (6) TMI 9
Issues Involved:
1. Whether any part of the tax paid under section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, was a "debt owed" on the relevant valuation dates within the meaning of section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Tax Paid Under Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, as a "Debt Owed":
The primary issue in this case is whether the tax paid under section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, can be considered a "debt owed" within the meaning of section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, on the relevant valuation dates.
Background and Facts:
The assessee, a regular taxpayer, disclosed concealed income under section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, and paid taxes at specified rates. The Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) did not allow the tax paid as a deduction while computing the "net wealth" of the assessee. The assessee appealed, arguing that the tax liability should be considered a "debt owed" and thus deductible.
Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention, stating that the liability to pay tax under section 68 arose only when the assessee opted for voluntary disclosure, and thus, it was not a liability on the relevant valuation dates.
Assessee's Argument:
The assessee argued that the tax paid under section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, is akin to income-tax payable under the Income-tax Act, and thus should be considered a "debt owed" as per the Supreme Court's decision in Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CWT [1966] 59 ITR 767.
Revenue's Argument:
The revenue contended that the tax paid under section 68 was for a new liability specifically for concealed income disclosed under the Finance Act, 1965, and not under the Income-tax Act. Therefore, it could not be considered a "debt owed" on the relevant valuation dates.
Judicial Precedents:
- Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CWT [1966] 59 ITR 767: The Supreme Court held that a liability to pay income-tax is a present liability, although it becomes payable after quantification. This principle was argued to apply to the tax paid under section 68.
- Gujarat High Court in CWT v. Ahmed Ibrahim Sahigara [1974] 93 ITR 288: Held that the tax paid under section 68 was a new liability and not deductible as a "debt owed."
- Delhi High Court in CWT v. Girdhari Lal [1975] 99 ITR 79: Dissented from the Gujarat view, holding that section 68 only prescribed a rate of tax for concealed income, which should be considered under the Income-tax Act.
- Allahabad High Court in CWT v. B. K. Sharma [1977] 110 ITR 902: Supported the view that the tax paid under section 68 should be considered a "debt owed," applying the Kesoram Industries principle.
- Calcutta High Court in CWT v. Bansidhar Poddar [1978] 112 ITR 957: Held that section 68 did not impose a new tax but provided a rate for concealed income, aligning with the Kesoram Industries principle.
High Court's Conclusion:
The High Court analyzed the conflicting views and the statutory provisions. It noted that although section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, created a new liability for concealed income, it was essentially in lieu of the regular income-tax liability. Thus, the tax paid under section 68 should be considered a "debt owed" for wealth-tax purposes.
Final Judgment:
The High Court answered the question in the affirmative, ruling in favor of the assessee. The tax paid under section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, was considered a "debt owed" on the relevant valuation dates within the meaning of section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The deduction allowed would be the amounts specified in the relevant column of the table provided in the judgment.
Costs:
The parties were directed to bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1978 (6) TMI 8
Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of the deceased's share in the goodwill of three firms in the principal value of the property under the Estate Duty Act, 1953.
2. Correctness of the valuation of the goodwill of the three firms.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Inclusion of the Deceased's Share in the Goodwill of Three Firms
Goodwill of M/s. Natwarlal & Co.:
The Tribunal held that the deceased's share in the goodwill of M/s. Natwarlal & Co. passed on his death and became liable to estate duty under Section 5 of the Estate Duty Act. The court agreed with this conclusion, noting that Clause 13 of the partnership deed clearly contemplates devolution of the share of the deceased in all the assets, including goodwill, to the continuing partners. This devolution occurs without any payment for the goodwill to the legal representatives of the deceased, thus bringing the case within the meaning of Section 5.
Goodwill of M/s. Kantilal Manilal & Co. and M/s. Pannalal Brothers:
The Tribunal initially included the deceased's share in the goodwill of these firms under Section 9, asserting that there was a relinquishment of rights without consideration. However, the court found this reasoning flawed. The court held that the relinquishment of the deceased's share in the assets, including goodwill, was accompanied by the continuing partners taking over the liabilities of the firm. This mutual exchange of rights and obligations constituted valid consideration, thus negating the application of Section 9. Consequently, the deceased's share in the goodwill of these two firms should not be included in the principal value of the property.
Issue 2: Correctness of the Valuation of the Goodwill
Goodwill of M/s. Natwarlal & Co.:
The Tribunal adopted a valuation method based on three years' purchase price on the basis of average maintainable profit of five years, excluding the year in which the death or retirement occurred. The court upheld this method, agreeing with the Tribunal's rejection of the argument that only returned profits should be considered. The court affirmed that assessed income, not returned income, should be the basis for valuation, and it should be the income finally determined. The court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's conclusion on the quantification of the goodwill.
Conclusion:
Question No. 1:
- The share of the deceased in the goodwill of M/s. Natwarlal & Co. was includible in the principal value of the property under Section 5 of the Estate Duty Act.
- The share of the deceased in the goodwill of M/s. Kantilal Manilal & Co. and M/s. Pannalal Brothers was not includible in the principal value of the property under Section 9 read with Explanation 2 to Clause (15) of Section 2 of the Estate Duty Act.
Question No. 2:
- The goodwill of M/s. Natwarlal & Co. was valued on correct legal principles.
The parties will bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1978 (6) TMI 7
Issues:
Whether the provisions of section 44E of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 were attracted in transactions involving the sale and repurchase of shares by an individual to three employees of a private limited company.
Detailed Analysis:
The judgment pertains to the assessment years 1952-53, 1953-54, and 1954-55, involving transactions between an individual, his wife, and three employees of a private limited company. The employees purchased shares from the individual, and subsequently, the shares were repurchased by the individual. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) contended that these transactions were benami and the dividends received should be treated as the individual's income or, alternatively, that section 44E of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 was applicable, taxing the dividends as the individual's income.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) upheld the ITO's findings, but the Tribunal reversed them, concluding that the employees held the shares on their own account and not as benamidars of the individual. The Tribunal also ruled that the provisions of section 44E were not attracted in this case.
The revenue sought a reference on whether section 44E applied, arguing that the employees were company employees, purchased and resold shares on the same day, and did not pay for the shares in cash. The revenue contended that the individual either agreed to buy back the shares or acquired an option to do so.
The court analyzed the provisions of section 44E, which deal with avoidance of tax through certain securities transactions. The court found that there was no evidence of an agreement to buy back the shares or the acquisition of an option by the individual. The evidence presented did not support the revenue's argument that section 44E applied, as the employees were under no obligation to sell the shares back to the individual at a fixed price.
Ultimately, the court held that the provisions of section 44E were not attracted in the transactions in question. The court ruled against the revenue, stating that the employees held the shares on their own account, and the individual did not have an agreement or option to repurchase the shares. Therefore, the court answered the reference question in the negative, with costs awarded to the assessee.
-
1978 (6) TMI 6
Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions of Gift-tax Act regarding the execution of a wakf indenture.
2. Determination of whether the execution of a document constituted a gift under the Act.
3. Analysis of whether the surrender of life interest by the assessee falls under the provisions of the Act.
Analysis:
The case involved the interpretation of the Gift-tax Act in relation to a wakf indenture executed by the assessee. The indenture assigned properties to a trustee with provisions for income distribution. The assessee, initially treating the properties as his own, later executed a document on March 30, 1964, altering beneficiaries. The revenue contended that this constituted a gift under the Act. However, the High Court referenced the Supreme Court's ruling that unilateral acts do not qualify as transactions under the Act. As the document was unilateral, involving only the assessee, it did not meet the criteria for a gift under the Act.
Regarding the surrender of life interest by the assessee, the Act's provisions under section 4(1)(c) were examined. This section deems certain actions, like surrendering an interest in property, as gifts unless proven to be bona fide. The Tribunal found the surrender to be bona fide, and no contention of bad faith was raised by the revenue. As such, the provisions of section 4(1)(c) were deemed not applicable in this case.
In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the document executed did not constitute a gift under the Act. The revenue was directed to bear the costs of the assessee. The judgment emphasized the necessity of multiple parties for a transaction to qualify as a gift under the Act and the importance of establishing lack of bona fides for actions to be deemed gifts under section 4(1)(c) of the Act.
-
1978 (6) TMI 5
Issues Involved:
1. Whether any part of the tax paid under section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, was a 'debt owed' on the relevant valuation dates within the meaning of section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Background and Facts:
The assessee, an individual, made voluntary disclosures of concealed income under section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, totaling Rs. 17,91,193. Tax was paid at flat rates of 57% and 60% on these disclosures. The Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) did not allow any part of the tax paid as a deduction for computing the net wealth of the assessee under section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
2. Proceedings Before the Authorities:
- The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC), relying on the Supreme Court decision in Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CWT [1966] 59 ITR 767. The AAC dismissed the appeal.
- The assessee then appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that the disclosed income attracted tax at the rates prescribed by the respective Finance Acts and should be deductible as debts owed. The Tribunal rejected this contention.
3. Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal concluded that the liability to pay tax under section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, was not a liability for payment of tax on the relevant valuation dates as per the charging sections of the Income-tax Acts. Therefore, no deduction of the proportionate tax paid by the assessee was allowed as a debt owed on the respective valuation dates.
4. High Court's Analysis:
- Assessee's Argument: The tax paid under section 68(3) of the Finance Act, 1965, is income-tax payable under the I.T. Act, and thus a debt owed, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Kesoram Industries.
- Revenue's Argument: The tax paid under section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, was a new liability for concealed income and not under the charging sections of the Income-tax Acts. Therefore, it could not be deducted as a debt owed.
5. Case Law Considered:
- Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CWT [1966] 59 ITR 767: The Supreme Court held that a liability to pay income-tax is a present liability, and the amount of provision for payment of income-tax is a debt owed on the valuation date.
- H. H. Setu Parvati Bayi v. CWT [1968] 69 ITR 864: Reiterated the principles laid down in Kesoram Industries.
6. High Court's Judgment:
- Kerala High Court in C. K. Babu Naidu v. WTO [1978] 112 ITR 341: Held that section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, only provided the rate of tax and was a machinery provision, not altering the liability under the I.T. Act.
- Gujarat High Court in CWT v. Ahmed Ibrahim Sahigara [1974] 93 ITR 288: Concluded that tax paid under section 68 was a new liability and not deductible as a debt owed.
- Delhi High Court in CWT v. Girdhari Lal [1975] 99 ITR 79: Dissented from the Gujarat view, holding that section 68 prescribed a rate of tax and was not a new charge.
- Allahabad High Court in CWT v. B. K. Sharma [1977] 110 ITR 902: Supported the assessee's claim for deduction, applying the ratio of Kesoram Industries.
- Calcutta High Court in CWT v. Bansidhar Poddar [1978] 112 ITR 957: Held that section 68 did not impose a new tax but prescribed a rate for an existing liability.
7. Conclusion:
The High Court, after considering various judgments, concluded that although the tax paid under section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, was not strictly under the charging sections of the Income-tax Acts, it must be regarded as income-tax paid in lieu of the ordinary charge of income-tax. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to deduct this amount as a debt owed in computing the net wealth.
8. Final Decision:
The question was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction of the amounts specified in column 7 of the table provided in the judgment. The parties were directed to bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1978 (6) TMI 4
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to relief under Section 49BB of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
2. Interpretation and application of Explanations I and II to Section 49BB.
3. Calculation of distributable income for the purpose of relief under Section 49BB.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement to Relief under Section 49BB:
The primary issue was whether the assessee was entitled to relief under Section 49BB of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the dividend declared in the financial year ending March 31, 1960. The assessee claimed relief on the basis that the dividend of Rs. 1,82,250 was declared out of profits already charged to income-tax before April 1, 1960.
The Tribunal initially accepted the assessee's contention that the dividend was paid from the reserve fund accumulated from prior years' profits. However, the Commissioner challenged this, arguing that the relief under Section 49BB was not applicable due to the deeming provisions in Explanations I and II.
2. Interpretation and Application of Explanations I and II to Section 49BB:
Explanation I introduces a legal fiction, deeming that dividends are first paid out of the distributable income of the previous year, and only the balance, if any, from earlier years' undistributed income. Explanation II defines "distributable income" and includes adjustments for income-tax, super-tax, other taxes, charitable contributions, and allowances not accounted for in the profit and loss account.
The Tribunal held that the reference to the profit and loss account should include all years from the company's inception, not just the previous year. This interpretation was challenged by the Commissioner, who argued that only the previous year's accounts should be considered.
The High Court disagreed with the Tribunal, stating that the statutory scheme under Section 49BB, including Explanations I and II, must be read as an integrated provision. The Court held that the reductions and increases specified in Explanation II pertain only to the previous year, not to all years since the company's inception.
3. Calculation of Distributable Income:
The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially calculated the distributable income for the assessment year 1960-61 as Rs. 13,58,908, ignoring the provision of Rs. 11,77,364 for machinery and building replacement. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) revised this to Rs. 1,81,644, considering the provision.
The Tribunal directed the ITO to verify the assessee's figures and provide relief if correct. However, the High Court clarified that the calculation of distributable income should consider only the previous year's accounts, as per Explanation II.
The High Court concluded that the dividend declared and paid out of the previous year's fictional distributable income (Rs. 1,81,644) would not qualify for relief under Section 49BB. Only the balance amount of Rs. 706, deemed paid out of earlier taxed profits, would qualify for relief.
Conclusion:
The High Court held that the assessee was entitled to relief under Section 49BB only to the extent of Rs. 706, as the remaining dividend amount was deemed paid out of the previous year's fictional distributable income. The integrated statutory scheme of Section 49BB and its Explanations must be applied, considering only the previous year's accounts for calculating distributable income. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
-
1978 (6) TMI 3
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the gift of Rs. 4 lakhs by Gopaldas to his minor sons.
2. Applicability of Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act to the credit balance in the minors' account.
3. Applicability of Section 44(a) of the Estate Duty Act concerning the debit of Rs. 4 lakhs to Gopaldas' account.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Validity of the Gift of Rs. 4 Lakhs
The first issue concerns whether there was a valid gift of Rs. 4 lakhs by Gopaldas to his minor sons, Krishnaraj and Arunkumar, on November 30, 1954. The Tribunal found that there was a valid gift, as it was virtually a gift of cash in favor of the minors. The firm could have easily provided Rs. 4 lakhs by borrowing if necessary. The court noted that Gopaldas' property was worth several lakhs, and the firm used it as security for overdraft facilities. The ownership of Kurva Castle by the minors was not disputed, indicating a valid and effective gift of Rs. 4 lakhs. The court also referenced the case of CIT v. Popatlal Mulji, which established that a gift can be effectuated by making entries in the books of account if it is shown that the gift was made by the donor, accepted by the donee, and acted upon by both. Thus, the court answered the first question in the affirmative, confirming the validity of the gift.
Issue 2: Applicability of Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act
The second issue pertains to whether the provisions of Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act could be applied to the credit balance in the minors' account. Section 10 stipulates that property taken under any gift shall be deemed to pass on the donor's death if bona fide possession and enjoyment were not immediately assumed by the donee and retained to the exclusion of the donor. The court referred to the Supreme Court case of CED v. C. R. Ramachandra Gounder, which held that an unequivocal transfer of property and crediting the amount in the donee's account satisfied the conditions of Section 10. In this case, the sum of Rs. 4 lakhs was treated as belonging to the minors and was partially used to purchase Kurva Castle. The deceased had given legal possession, and the benefit as a partner was not referable to the gift. Therefore, the court concluded that Section 10 could not be applied and answered the second question in the negative, against the revenue.
Issue 3: Applicability of Section 44(a) of the Estate Duty Act
The third issue examines whether the debit of Rs. 4 lakhs to Gopaldas' account was liable to be disallowed under Section 44(a) of the Estate Duty Act. Section 44(a) disallows debts unless they were incurred bona fide for full consideration in money or money's worth, wholly for the deceased's own use and benefit. The revenue argued that the simultaneous debit and credit entries meant the debt was not incurred wholly for the deceased's benefit. The court referenced the House of Lords' decision in Attorney-General v. Duke of Richmond and Gordon and the Court of Appeal's decision in In re Whitfield's Estate, which established that the direct and immediate purpose of incurring the debt should be considered, not the ulterior motives. The court held that the provisions of Section 44(a) were satisfied as the debt was incurred for the deceased's own use and benefit. Thus, the court answered the third question in the negative, in favor of the accountable person.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that:
1. The gift of Rs. 4 lakhs by Gopaldas to his minor sons was valid.
2. Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act does not apply to the credit balance in the minors' account.
3. The debit of Rs. 4 lakhs to Gopaldas' account is not disallowed under Section 44(a) of the Estate Duty Act.
The revenue was ordered to pay the costs of the accountable person.
-
1978 (6) TMI 2
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the surplus realized from the purchase of decrees was liable to be included in the assessee's business profits.
2. Whether the transactions constituted an adventure in the nature of trade.
Summary:
Issue 1: Inclusion of Surplus in Business Profits
The primary question was whether the amounts of Rs. 33,860 and Rs. 35,063, realized by the assessee from the purchase of decrees, should be included in his business profits. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) argued that these surpluses were profits from an adventure in the nature of trade, citing the assessee's lack of liquid funds, the nature of the decrees, and the interconnected transactions aimed at earning income. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) upheld this view, noting that the decrees were purchased at a discount to gain substantial profit and that the assessee had a speculative motive.
Issue 2: Adventure in the Nature of Trade
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal disagreed with the ITO and AAC, concluding that the transactions did not constitute an adventure in the nature of trade. The Tribunal noted the financial difficulties of Kalyan Mills Ltd. and the assessee's interest in the company and related entities. It found that the assessee's motive was more to relieve the debtor and expedite debt realization rather than to engage in a profit-making scheme. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee had not undertaken similar transactions before or after and that there were no clear indicia of trade.
Court's Analysis and Conclusion:
The High Court examined the facts and previous judgments, including CIT v. Himalayan Tiles and Marble P. Ltd. [1975] 100 ITR 177 and Kanwarlal Manoharlal v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 439. The court distinguished the present case from Himalayan Tiles, noting the assessee's close relationship with the judgment-debtors and the possible motive to help them. The court concluded that the dominant intention of the assessee was not sufficiently established as an adventure in the nature of trade. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision was upheld, and the question was answered in the negative, in favor of the assessee.
Final Judgment:
The surplus amounts were not chargeable to tax as profits of business, and the parties were to bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1978 (6) TMI 1
Issues: Assessment of under-charges as part of total income for the assessment year 1955-56.
Analysis:
The case involved a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, regarding the assessment year 1955-56. The primary question was whether an amount of Rs. 43,288, being under-charges from unclaimed credit balances, should be included in the assessee's total income for that year. The assessee had claimed that this amount should not be treated as a revenue receipt. The under-charges arose from freight discrepancies for under-loaded wagons, which the customers had to pay despite the wagons not being fully loaded by the collieries. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) held that these under-charges constituted trading receipts of the assessee and were taxable. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld this assessment based on findings from previous years.
The Tribunal noted that in a previous assessment year, it was established that the unclaimed credit balance represented the assessee's income from business activities. The assessee's business involved securing coal supply orders, including freight charges, and claiming under-charges from collieries for excess freight paid on coal not supplied. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the previous year's decision and upheld the inclusion of the unclaimed credit balance amount in the assessee's business receipts. The assessee argued for a remand based on a previous court decision that under-charges did not constitute trading receipts. However, the Revenue contended that the facts established in the current assessment year were final and should determine the outcome.
The court agreed with the Revenue, emphasizing that the facts found in the current assessment year were conclusive and not subject to reconsideration based on findings from other years. It was held that there was no justification for a fresh hearing or introduction of new evidence by the Tribunal. The question of whether the under-charges should be included in the assessee's total income for the assessment year 1955-56 was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue. No costs were awarded in the matter.
Judge SEN concurred with the decision.
....
|
9911796707
