Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1990 1990 (1) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 121 to 140 of 274 Records

• 1990 (1) TMI 186
  
  Issues: Interpretation of Rule 57-0 of the Central Excise Rules regarding the availment of credit on inputs without filing a declaration.
  
  In this case, the appeal was against an order directing the appellants to expunge the credit taken for a consignment of Cotton seed oil as per Central Excise Notification 27/87 and Rules 57K and 57-0 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant contended that although they had not filed the required declaration at the time of taking credit, they later filed it and should be allowed to avail the credit retrospectively. The key argument was that Rule 57-0 should be construed in their favor as there was no express prohibition on availing credit for inputs already utilized in the end-product without initially taking credit. The Tribunal considered the scope of Rule 57-0 and emphasized that filing a declaration is a prerequisite for availing credit on inputs. The rule mandates that a manufacturer must file a declaration with the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, specifying the inputs intended to be used in the final products, before taking credit. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's failure to file the declaration at the time of taking credit for Cotton seed oil was fatal to their claim. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the order to expunge the credit taken for the input consignment.
  
  This judgment clarifies the strict procedural requirements under Rule 57-0 for manufacturers to file a declaration before availing credit on inputs. It highlights that filing a declaration is a mandatory condition precedent for taking credit on inputs, emphasizing the importance of compliance with statutory obligations. The Tribunal's interpretation underscores the significance of adhering to procedural rules in excise matters and the consequences of non-compliance. The decision serves as a reminder to manufacturers to ensure strict adherence to procedural requirements to avoid adverse consequences such as disallowance of credit.

  ---

• 1990 (1) TMI 185
  
  Issues:
  - Appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise rejecting the claim for refund of duty on imported goods due to shortages.
  - Entitlement to relief by way of remission of duty under Sec. 23 of the Customs Act, 1962 based on survey report findings.
  - Consideration of survey report as evidence and relevance of Customs authorities' involvement in the survey process.
  
  Analysis:
  The appellant imported certain parts of electric/mechanical tools from Germany and claimed a refund of duty on goods with shortages. The appeal challenged the order rejecting the refund claim, which was confirmed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. The appellant's counsel argued that the Port Trust authorities and recognized surveyors found shortages in the goods, but the Customs authorities did not sign the survey report, leading to the rejection of the refund claim.
  
  The main issue before the Tribunal was whether the appellant was entitled to relief by way of remission of duty for shortages of goods under Sec. 23 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal noted that the survey report by recognized surveyors confirmed the shortages, and the Customs authorities were present during the survey, although they did not sign the report. The Tribunal emphasized that the Customs authorities did not provide a definite finding against the appellant regarding the shortages.
  
  The Tribunal relied on precedents, including judgments from the Bombay High Court and the West Regional Bench, which highlighted the importance of survey reports as relevant evidence. The Tribunal noted that the authorities below did not give any valid reason to disregard the survey report and that the Customs officers' absence from signing the report did not invalidate its evidentiary value. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant should be granted remission of duty based on the existing survey report in favor of the appellant.
  
  In light of the legal principles established by the cited judgments and the absence of a definitive finding against the appellant, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellant in terms of remission of duty for the shortages identified in the survey report.

  ---

• 1990 (1) TMI 184
  
  Issues Involved:
  The appeal challenges the denial of MODVAT credit on Aluminium sheets used in the manufacturing process of unwrought zinc, based on the exclusion of equipment parts under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules.
  
  Analysis of the Judgment:
  
  1. Issue of MODVAT Credit Eligibility:
  The appellants sought MODVAT credit for Aluminium sheets used in the electrolysis process for manufacturing unwrought zinc. The lower authorities denied the credit citing Rule 57A exclusion of equipment parts from the MODVAT Scheme.
  
  2. Appellant's Argument:
  The appellant's counsel argued that Aluminium sheets are essential in the manufacturing process, akin to Titanium Metal Anodes eligible for MODVAT credit. They contended that Aluminium sheets are specified inputs under Rule 57A and integral to producing unwrought zinc.
  
  3. Revenue's Position:
  The Revenue contended that since equipment is excluded under Rule 57A, parts of equipment, including Aluminium sheets, should also be excluded from MODVAT credit eligibility.
  
  4. Judicial Analysis and Decision:
  The Tribunal deliberated on whether Aluminium sheets were used in or in relation to the manufacture of zinc. It was acknowledged that Aluminium sheets function as cathodes in the electrolysis process and are eventually discarded as waste metal. The Tribunal noted that the exclusion under Rule 57A pertained to machinery and equipment, not raw materials like Aluminium sheets.
  
  5. Legal Interpretation and Precedents:
  Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling on goods used 'in the manufacture,' the Tribunal emphasized the broad interpretation of 'in or in relation to' the manufacturing process under Rule 57A. Drawing parallels with previous decisions on Graphite Anodes, the Tribunal concluded that Aluminium sheets qualify as inputs for MODVAT credit.
  
  6. Final Verdict:
  In alignment with the Supreme Court's interpretation and precedent set by the Tribunal, the appeal was allowed, granting the appellants the benefit of MODVAT credit for the Aluminium sheets used in the manufacturing of unwrought zinc.

  ---

• 1990 (1) TMI 183
  
  Issues:
  - Appeal against disallowance of Modvat credit by Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar.
  - Interpretation of Rule 57E prior to its amendment w.e.f. 15-4-1987.
  - Eligibility for Modvat credit in relation to duty payments subsequent to original clearance.
  - Application of Rule 57A and 57E in determining Modvat credit.
  - Disallowance of credit due to Chapter-X procedure for non-duty paid inputs.
  - Clarification on Modvat credit eligibility based on published materials and trade notices.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involves an appeal against the disallowance of Modvat credit by the Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, originating from two specific orders disallowing substantial amounts of Modvat credit taken in January 1987 and March 1986 to April 1987. The Collector (Appeals) had allowed the appeal filed by the respondent, holding them eligible for Modvat credit related to duty payments subsequent to the original payment at the time of goods clearance, supported by Gate Passes.
  
  The main issue revolves around the interpretation of Rule 57E before its amendment in April 1987. The appellant argued that Modvat credit should only be accorded for duty paid after clearance post the amendment. However, the Tribunal noted that Rule 57A allows credit for excise duty paid on goods used in manufacturing final products, not limited to duty paid at original clearance. The Tribunal emphasized that subsequent duty payments, if authenticated, are eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A, even if paid before the amendment.
  
  The dispute also involved the application of Rule 57A and 57E in determining Modvat credit eligibility. The Tribunal agreed with the Collector (Appeals) that the respondents were entitled to Modvat credit for duty payments subsequent to clearance, as per Rule 57A, despite the limitations of Rule 57E before the amendment.
  
  Another issue addressed was the disallowance of credit due to the Chapter-X procedure for non-duty paid inputs. The respondent clarified that part of the disallowed credit related to normal credit rejected based on using the Chapter-X procedure. However, the Tribunal upheld the Collector (Appeals) decision, affirming the eligibility for Modvat credit for duty paid inputs used in manufacturing final products.
  
  Furthermore, the Tribunal considered published materials and trade notices to clarify Modvat credit eligibility. The respondent referred to publications clarifying that Modvat credit is admissible if duty is paid on goods fully exempt from use in final product manufacturing. Based on these clarifications, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals and upheld the Collector (Appeals) orders, affirming the eligibility for Modvat credit as determined by the Collector (Appeals).

  ---

• 1990 (1) TMI 181
  
  Issues:
  - Appeal against order of Additional Collector of Customs confiscating goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act for importation of "Aerosol Valves" under OGL.
  
  Analysis:
  1. Importation of Components: The appellants argued that the imported items are components of "Aerosol Valves" covered by Appendix 6 item-I of the Import Policy. They contended that Entry No. 422 in List-8 Part-1 of Appendix-6 permits "Aerosol Valves, other than metered type" for actual users. The Ld. Advocate presented evidence showing that the items imported were indeed components of Aerosol Valves, emphasizing the importance of the "Dip Tube" as a major component for a complete Aerosol Valve.
  
  2. Contention of Respondent: The Respondent argued that the items were imported in S.K.D. condition and referred to restricted items under Appendix-3 and Sl. No. 487, which are meant for actual users only. The Respondent proposed that the case should be remanded for further examination as the appellants are not actual users of the restricted items.
  
  3. Nature of Imported Valves: The imported valves were declared as components for Aerosol Valves, and the examination report confirmed the presence of Valve Body, Washers, and Nozzles. The Ld. Advocate explained the term "component" as per ITC Policy and Handbook of Aerosol Technology. The components of a Valve were detailed, highlighting the absence of the Dip Tube, which is crucial for a complete Valve assembly. The adjudicating authority failed to provide a basis for considering the imported items as complete Valves.
  
  4. Decision and Rationale: The Tribunal found that the imported items constituted components of Aerosol Valves as per the evidence presented. The order of the Additional Collector confiscating the goods was set aside, granting relief to the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that the appeal was admissible based on the findings that the consignment did not contravene the ITC Policy, as argued by the appellants. The Respondent's plea for de novo consideration was deemed unsustainable at this stage of the appeal process, as the limited issues from the adjudication order were under review.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, determining that the imported items were indeed components of Aerosol Valves as per the relevant policies and definitions provided. The order of the Additional Collector was overturned, and the appellants were granted consequential relief based on the findings presented during the appeal proceedings.

  ---

• 1990 (1) TMI 179
  
  Issues:
  Delay in filing appeal under Customs Act, 1962 - Condonation of delay - Sufficiency of cause for delay.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi dealt with the issue of condonation of delay in filing an appeal under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant, the Collector of Customs, had filed an appeal after a delay of 1 month and 24 days from the prescribed period of three months. The Tribunal had the discretion to admit an appeal filed after the stipulated period if satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay. The appellant cited the non-availability of original records and the time taken to reconstruct the file based on duplicate documents provided by the respondents as the reason for the delay.
  
  The Tribunal, however, found the explanation unsatisfactory. It noted that the respondents had provided the necessary documents multiple times, totaling six instances. Even if the Customs House records were unavailable, the records of the Collector (Appeals) would have contained the required documents. The Tribunal concluded that the reasons given by the Collector did not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. As a result, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and the appeal was deemed barred by limitation.
  
  The judgment highlighted the importance of providing a detailed explanation for delays in legal proceedings. Merely citing non-availability of records without substantial supporting evidence may not be considered sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Tribunal emphasized the need for parties to diligently pursue their cases and provide comprehensive information to justify any delays in filing appeals under statutory timelines. The decision serves as a reminder of the strict adherence to procedural requirements in legal matters, especially when seeking extensions of prescribed time limits.

  ---

• 1990 (1) TMI 175
  
  Issues:
  1. Disallowance of Modvat credit by Assistant Collector.
  2. Appeal challenging the orders of the Collector (Appeals) regarding Modvat credit entitlement.
  3. Interpretation of Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
  4. Dispute over the availability of Modvat credit for duty paid subsequently.
  5. Admissibility of Modvat credit in cases of duty payments relating to escalation of value.
  
  Analysis:
  
  The judgment involves an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar against the Order-in-Appeal in favor of SAIL, Rourkela Steel Plant, regarding the disallowance of Modvat credit by the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector disallowed the credit due to the absence of prescribed documents under Rule 57G(2). The Collector (Appeals) overturned this decision, allowing the appeal without prejudice to further verification of the claim. The main contention was whether SAIL was entitled to the Modvat credit. The Collector (Appeals) held in favor of SAIL, leading to the current appeal challenging this decision.
  
  During the hearing, the appellant argued that Rule 57E did not cover situations where duty was recovered post-clearance before its amendment in 1987. The appellant contended that Modvat credit adjustments were only permissible in specific cases post the 1987 amendment. The appellant sought to disallow the Modvat credit claimed by SAIL based on the timing of duty payment. Conversely, the respondent argued that they were rightfully entitled to the Modvat credit for duty payments related to the escalation of value, opposing the appellant's appeal.
  
  The Tribunal, after considering both parties' submissions, upheld the Order of the Collector (Appeals). The Tribunal emphasized that Modvat credit under Rule SPA was not limited to duty paid at the time of original clearance but extended to duty paid subsequently. The Tribunal highlighted that the absence of gate passes for subsequent duty payments should not negate the entitlement to Modvat credit. The Tribunal clarified that the amended provisions of Rule 57E did not contradict the substantive provisions of Rule SPA governing the Modvat scheme, ensuring the availability of the benefit from the scheme's inception in 1986. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Collector (Appeals) decision in favor of SAIL.
  
  In conclusion, the judgment resolves the dispute regarding the entitlement to Modvat credit for duty paid subsequently, emphasizing the broader scope of the Modvat scheme under Rule SPA and the compatibility of the amended Rule 57E with the scheme's fundamental provisions.

  ---

• 1990 (1) TMI 174
  
  Issues:
  Classification of imported goods under heading 3909.50 or 2929.10 of CTA 1975.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. The primary issue in this case was the classification of the imported goods, "DESMODUR T-80 (ISOCYNATES)," under heading 3909.50 of CTA 1975 or 2929.10. The department classified it under heading 3909.50, while the appellants sought classification under 2929.10. The appellants argued that the goods should be classified under Chapter 29, Heading 2929.10, as an organic chemical isocyanate. They contended that Section Note 3 of Section VI of CTA 1975 had not been considered by the authorities before rejecting their claim.
  
  2. During the hearing, the appellants requested the case to be decided based on a Trade Notice issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, Circular No. 2/89-CX.3. The Trade Notice clarified the assessment of Polyols and Isocyanates individually on merits, even if imported together.
  
  3. The Tribunal, after examining the grounds of appeal and the Trade Notice, allowed the appeal. They noted that the Trade Notice referred to by the appellant covered the issue at hand, supporting the appellants' classification argument under Heading 2929.10.
  
  4. The Central Board of Excise & Customs had previously addressed the assessment of Polyols and Isocyanates when supplied together for the production of Polyurethane Foam. The Board concluded that these goods should be assessed individually on merits, even when presented together at the time of sale, rather than as polyurethane foam.
  
  5. The Assistant Collector of Customs had initially classified the imported goods under 3909.50 based on the classification of the end product. However, the Tribunal's decision aligned with the Trade Notice and clarified that goods like Polyols and Isocyanates should be assessed individually, not as a set for the end product.
  
  6. The appellants argued that the imported goods did not meet the conditions to be considered a set under Section Note 3 to Section IV of CTA 1975. They contended that each item should be classified on its own merits, as clarified in the Trade Notice.
  
  7. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the appellants' contention, allowing the appeal and confirming that the imported goods should be assessed individually on merits under Heading 2929.10, rather than being classified under Section Note 3 to Section VI as previously held by the authorities.
  
  8. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants, emphasizing the need for individual assessment of Polyols and Isocyanates based on their merits, as per the Trade Notice and the classification under Heading 2929.10 of CTA 1975.

  ---

• 1990 (1) TMI 172
  
  The Appellate Tribunal allowed the Misc. Application for amending the ROM application. Smt. Wadhwa argued for remand of the case for re-adjudication based on principles of natural justice. The Tribunal modified its earlier order and allowed the ROM application. The Tribunal held that the Collector did not violate principles of natural justice by not allowing cross-examination of the accountant. The appeal will now be heard on merits before the regular Bench.

  ---

• 1990 (1) TMI 171
  
  Issues:
  1. Validity of the license produced by the appellant.
  2. Confiscation of imported goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3 of the Imports & Export (Control) Act, 1947.
  3. Interpretation of Para-186(7) of AM-82 Policy.
  4. Application of Para-255(3) of AM-83-84 Policy.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Validity of the license produced by the appellant
  The appellant imported goods under a license claimed to be valid under OGL as per Para-186(7) of AM-82 Policy. The Collector of Customs held that the license was not valid for the imported goods, leading to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant contended that the license was revalidated with specific conditions, restricting the import to items listed in Appendices 5 and 7 of the Import Policy Book 82-83. The Tribunal found that the endorsement on the revalidated license clearly stated the limitations, and the imported goods did not fall within the permitted categories. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the adjudicating authority regarding the validity of the license.
  
  Issue 2: Confiscation of imported goods
  The Collector of Customs confiscated the imported goods due to the license not covering the items in question. The appellant argued for the applicability of Para-186(7) of AM-82 Policy, which allows clearance under OGL. However, the Tribunal found that the conditions specified during the revalidation of the license were binding on the appellant, and the goods imported did not meet the criteria set out in the endorsement. As a result, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the goods under the relevant legal provisions.
  
  Issue 3: Interpretation of Para-186(7) of AM-82 Policy
  The appellant claimed clearance under OGL as per Para-186(7) of AM-82 Policy. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of the policy and concluded that the revalidation conditions of the license were crucial in determining the scope of permissible imports. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant could only benefit from Para-186(7) if the goods were imported during the normal validity of the license or revalidation without any restrictive conditions. Since the imported goods did not align with the restrictions outlined in the revalidation endorsement, the Tribunal supported the Collector's decision.
  
  Issue 4: Application of Para-255(3) of AM-83-84 Policy
  The respondent argued that Para-255(3) of AM-83-84 Policy was applicable, which states that certain licenses will cease to be valid for imports no longer permitted under the new policy. The Tribunal examined the provisions and found that the restrictions imposed during the revalidation of the license were clear and binding. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the goods imported were not covered by the license due to the specific conditions outlined in the revalidation endorsement. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants, upholding the decision of the adjudicating authority regarding the confiscation of the goods.

  ---

• 1990 (1) TMI 170
  
  Issues:
  Importation of Diethylene Diamine under Open General Licence, applicability of canalised items regulations, interpretation of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, past practices affecting importation, penalty imposition.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The appellant imported Diethylene Diamine seeking clearance under Open General Licence, but the Customs Department found it to be Hydrated Piperazine, falling under canalised items regulations. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods, imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 50,000, and a penalty of Rs. 1,000. The appellant contended that Diethylene Diamine is an intermediate drug outside the purview of canalised items, not complying with Drugs and Cosmetics Act standards.
  
  2. The appellant argued that the imported material, being a drug intermediate, does not fall under canalised items regulations. They claimed that the goods were cleared in the past, suggesting an erroneous decision by the adjudicating authority. The respondent contended that Diethylene Diamine is an active ingredient for Piperazine, falling under canalised items, and importation through canalised agencies is mandatory.
  
  3. The Tribunal considered past decisions where the importation of similar substances was disputed. The Tribunal noted that the definition of drugs includes substances for preparing medicines, supporting the respondent's argument that Diethylene Diamine is an active ingredient for Piperazine. The Tribunal upheld the canalised items regulations, dismissing the appellant's arguments against the importation restrictions.
  
  4. Referring to previous cases, the Tribunal emphasized that past practices cannot override statutory provisions. In this case, the appellant failed to establish a past practice supporting their importation. The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 35,000 and set aside the penalty imposition, considering the circumstances. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, affirming the adjudicating authority's decision on importation and penalties.

  ---

• 1990 (1) TMI 169
  
  Issues:
  1. Appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) dismissed as time-barred.
  2. Contention regarding the appeal being deemed presented on an earlier date due to a letter sent under Certificate of Posting.
  3. Dispute over the receipt of the letter by the Collector and the presumption of correctness of official acts.
  4. Interpretation of Section 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 regarding the time limit for filing appeals.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  1. The appellant filed an appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, which was dismissed by the Collector as time-barred. The appellant claimed to have sent a letter under Certificate of Posting on 11-5-1984, followed by the appeal on 12-11-1984, received by the Collector on 15-11-1984, beyond the six-month limitation period from the date of receipt of the Assistant Collector's order.
  
  2. The appellant argued that the appeal should be deemed presented on 11-5-1984, relying on the Telegraph Rules, 1948, which presume receipt under Certificate of Posting. However, the respondent contended that mere assertion of sending a letter is insufficient without evidence of receipt by the Collector, emphasizing that the Post Office is not the Collector's agent.
  
  3. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to conclusively establish the receipt of the letter by the Collector, as asserted by the Collector in his order. The absence of evidence supporting the claim, other than a Postal certificate, led to the presumption of correctness of official acts under Section 114(G) of the Indian Evidence Act. Citing a Supreme Court decision, it was clarified that no personal hearing is required when an appeal is time-barred, and the Collector cannot extend the time limit beyond six months.
  
  4. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision, stating that the appeal was time-barred under Section 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The rejection of the appeal was deemed appropriate, as the appellant failed to demonstrate timely filing, leading to dismissal of the appeal without grounds for interference. The judgment concluded with the dismissal of the appeal.

  ---

• 1990 (1) TMI 168
  
  Issues:
  1. Competency of the Additional Collector to adjudicate on the show cause notice issued by the Supdt.
  2. Enforceability of the demand based on the show cause notices issued by the Additional Collector.
  3. Interpretation of the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in GSFC case.
  4. Application of the extended period of limitation for invoking demand.
  
  The judgment pertains to an appeal against the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise & Customs confirming a demand against the appellants for a specific period. The show cause notices issued by the Supdt. and the Additional Collector are analyzed. The show cause notice by the Supdt. did not allege suppression or fraud but traversed beyond six months. The Additional Collector's notice, issued in compliance with a Gujarat High Court judgment, alleged suppression and fraud. The Additional Collector's order sought to give effect to the Supdt.'s notice but concluded that the extended period was not applicable due to no suppression or fraud found.
  
  The appellant's advocate argued that the Additional Collector's order was incorrect as the notice issued by the Supdt. had been replaced by the Additional Collector's notice, which alleged suppression and fraud. The advocate referenced the Gujarat High Court judgment, which deemed notices exceeding six months as illegal. The advocate contended that the demand based on the second notice could only cover six months from its issuance date, which fell beyond the period due to the absence of suppression or fraud.
  
  The department's representative argued that the Additional Collector's notice was valid and not nullified by the subsequent notice. He maintained that the Supdt.'s notice could be enforced for a period of six months. The main issue revolved around whether the Additional Collector had the authority to adjudicate on the Supdt.'s notice for demanding duty within six months from its issuance. The Tribunal observed that the Additional Collector had superseded the Supdt.'s notice by issuing his own notice, alleging fraud and suppression, and therefore, the demand based on the Supdt.'s notice was deemed illegal and unsustainable.
  
  The Tribunal held that the Additional Collector's attempt to enforce the demand limited to a period of six months from the Supdt.'s notice issuance date, which was replaced by another notice, was illegal. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's argument and allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellants.

  ---

• 1990 (1) TMI 161
  
  Issues:
  Computation of deduction under section 48(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved a dispute regarding the computation of deduction under section 48(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arising from the sale of land by the assessee. The assessee had sold land for Rs. 15,00,000, with a cost of land as on 1-4-1974 at Rs. 3,20,000 and total transfer expenses of Rs. 32,000. The assessee claimed exemption under section 54E by investing Rs. 5,99,900 in a specified asset. The dispute arose when the Commissioner of Income-tax recalculated the net capital gain chargeable to tax at Rs. 3,38,500, differing from the assessee's computation of Rs. 99,868. The main contention was whether the deduction under section 48(2) should be allowed with reference to the capital gain arrived at under section 48(1)(a) after excluding the amount of exemption under section 54E.
  
  The Tribunal considered the provisions of the Income-tax Act, specifically sections 45, 48, 53, and 54E, to interpret the computation of capital gains and deductions. It noted that section 54E provides that the capital gain attributable to the investment in specified assets shall not be charged to tax. The Tribunal emphasized that the provisions of section 48(1)(a) cannot be read in isolation but must be read in conjunction with the sections regarding exemptions listed in section 45. It held that the capital gain referred to under section 48(1)(a) should exclude amounts not chargeable to tax under various sections, including section 54E. The net balance after deductions mentioned in section 48(1)(a) should be considered for the purpose of deduction under section 48(2.
  
  The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that the deduction should be allowed against the income not chargeable to tax, stating that it would defeat the legislative intent of promoting savings through investments. The Tribunal cited decisions in support of its interpretation, including Capt. K.C. Saigal v. ITO and Mrs. Pushpa B. Sheth v. Asstt. CIT. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

  ---

• 1990 (1) TMI 158
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Imposition and cancellation of penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
  2. Method of accounting followed by the assessee.
  3. Revised returns filed by the assessee.
  4. Validity of penalties imposed by the Income Tax Officer (I.T.O.).
  5. Quantum of penalty, if warranted.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Imposition and Cancellation of Penalties Under Section 271(1)(c):
  
  The primary issue revolves around the penalties imposed by the I.T.O. under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment years 1974-75 to 1976-77 and 1978-79 to 1980-81. Both the C.I.T.(A), Nashik, and the A.A.C., Aurangabad, cancelled these penalties, holding that "in the totality of circumstances and facts of the case as well as conduct of the assessee, there was no conscious attempt to conceal any income or furnish inaccurate particulars of income."
  
  2. Method of Accounting Followed by the Assessee:
  
  The assessee, a registered firm dealing in readymade garments and hosiery, maintained regular books of accounts. However, it was found that the assessee did not account for credit sales recorded in 'Jangad' books and did not adjust goods returned to suppliers in the purchases account. The method of accounting followed was such that sales were recorded when cash was realized, and goods returned were shown separately in the balance sheet.
  
  3. Revised Returns Filed by the Assessee:
  
  Upon realization of the correct method of accounting during the assessment proceedings for the year 1981-82, the assessee filed revised returns for the assessment years in question. These revised returns included the net accretion in the 'Jangad' account and 'Mal Parath account,' which were previously not accounted for. The I.T.O. regularized these returns by issuing statutory notices under Section 148.
  
  4. Validity of Penalties Imposed by the I.T.O.:
  
  The I.T.O. issued show-cause notices for the levy of penalties under Section 271(1)(c), arguing that the revised returns were filed only after the detection of concealment. The I.T.O. was satisfied that the assessee had concealed particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars in the original returns. However, the appellate authorities found that the assessee had cooperated with the department and had voluntarily filed revised returns upon understanding the correct method of accounting. They concluded that there was no conscious attempt to conceal income.
  
  5. Quantum of Penalty, if Warranted:
  
  The learned counsel for the assessee argued that if penalties were to be levied, they should be based on the new law effective from 1-4-1976, which considers the tax sought to be avoided. Several court decisions were cited to support this argument. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and submissions, upheld the orders of the first appellate authority, concluding that penalties were not warranted in this case.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The Tribunal dismissed the appeals by the revenue, upholding the orders of the first appellate authority that cancelled the penalties imposed by the I.T.O. under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal found that the assessee had not deliberately concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars and had voluntarily filed revised returns upon understanding the correct method of accounting. Consequently, penalties were not justified, and the appeals were dismissed.

  ---

• 1990 (1) TMI 155
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Valuation of jewelry
  2. Legality of reassessment proceedings under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957
  3. Validity of notices issued under Section 17(1)(a) and 17(1)(b)
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Valuation of Jewelry:
  The primary issue revolved around the valuation of diamond jewelry. The assessee had initially declared the value of jewelry based on an estimate from an approved valuer dated 31-3-1976. The Wealth-tax Officer (WTO) reassessed the valuation based on a government valuer's report dated 6-12-1986, obtained during a search of the assessee's premises. The reassessed value was significantly higher at Rs. 1,95,650 compared to the values declared by the assessee for various assessment years ranging from Rs. 40,777 to Rs. 73,440.
  
  2. Legality of Reassessment Proceedings Under Section 17:
  The WTO issued notices under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, alleging that the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessments. The assessee argued that the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion and cited several judicial decisions to support this claim. The WTO, however, relied on decisions like Ganeshi Lal & Sons v. ITO and CIT v. A. Raman & Co., which justified the reassessment on the grounds of new information obtained during the search.
  
  The appellate authority, DCWT(A), upheld the WTO's decision, stating that the appellant had failed to disclose the true value of the jewelry, making the reassessment proceedings under Section 17 valid. The DCWT(A) distinguished the case from Saroj Devi v. WTO, where reassessment was based on audit objections, which was not the case here.
  
  3. Validity of Notices Issued Under Section 17(1)(a) and 17(1)(b):
  The assessee contended that the notices under Section 17(1)(a) were invalid as there was full disclosure of primary facts during the original assessments. The counsel for the assessee cited several cases, including Saroj Devi v. WTO and Smt. Gulnar Marfatia v. CWT, arguing that reassessment based on valuation reports was not valid without new material facts.
  
  The Tribunal considered these arguments and noted that the valuation report obtained during the search constituted new information, justifying reassessment under Section 17(1)(b). The Tribunal also referred to the Full Bench decision in Smt. Nirmala Birla v. WTO, which allowed notices issued under Section 17(1)(a) to be treated as notices under Section 17(1)(b) if issued within the limitation period of four years.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal concluded that the reassessment proceedings under Section 17(1)(b) were valid as they were based on new information obtained during the search. The Tribunal directed the WTO to adjust the valuation of the jewelry by reducing Rs. 16,000 per year from the date of the original valuation in 1976. The appeals were allowed to this extent.

  ---

• 1990 (1) TMI 153
  
  The Department appealed to restore a penalty order under s. 271(1)(a) cancelled by the AAC. The assessee, a partner in four firms, filed the return late due to share income unavailability. The ITO imposed a penalty, but the AAC canceled it citing a reasonable cause. The ITAT agreed with the AAC, dismissing the Department's appeal. (1990 (1) TMI 153 - ITAT NEW DELHI)

  ---

• 1990 (1) TMI 150
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  2. Applicability of the Explanation to Section 263.
  3. Merits of the claim for higher depreciation on plant and machinery.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
  The assessee contended that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to revise the assessment under Section 263 because the entire order of the Income-tax Officer (ITO) had merged with that of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The Commissioner, however, held that the merger doctrine applied only to matters specifically addressed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner, noting that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on the issue of higher depreciation for the written down value (WDV) of the plant and machinery added in earlier years. Therefore, the Commissioner retained jurisdiction to revise this part of the ITO's order.
  
  2. Applicability of the Explanation to Section 263:
  The assessee argued that the Explanation to Section 263, introduced by the Finance Acts of 1988 and 1989, did not apply retrospectively and thus could not affect the assessment completed in 1984. The Tribunal, however, held that the Explanation was declaratory and intended to clarify the law as it always stood. The Explanation stated that the Commissioner's powers to revise extended to matters not considered and decided in an appeal, irrespective of when the appeal was filed. The Tribunal found that the Explanation had retrospective effect, thereby validating the Commissioner's jurisdiction to revise the ITO's order.
  
  3. Merits of the claim for higher depreciation on plant and machinery:
  On the merits, the Tribunal considered the practical difficulties and doubtful revenue benefits involved in reclassifying machinery added in earlier years. It referenced a similar case, T.I. Diamond Chain Ltd., where the Tribunal had upheld the CIT(A)'s decision not to disturb the WDV of old machinery due to practical difficulties and negligible revenue impact. The Tribunal concluded that requiring the assessee to produce evidence for machinery added in earlier years was unjust and unnecessary. It held that the assessee should be allowed depreciation at 15% for the WDV of machinery added in earlier years, as was done in previous years.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's jurisdiction under Section 263 but ruled in favor of the assessee on the merits, allowing the higher depreciation rate of 15% for the WDV of machinery added in earlier years. The appeal was thus partly allowed.

  ---

• 1990 (1) TMI 149
  
  The appeal concerned the exclusion of jewellery gifted by the assessee from their net wealth. The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the transfer was irrevocable under the Wealth-tax Act, and the value of the jewellery should be excluded from the net wealth until the power to revoke is exercised. The Wealth-tax Officer was directed to re-compute the net wealth, and the appeal was allowed. (Case: 1990 (1) TMI 149 - ITAT MADRAS-D)

  ---

• 1990 (1) TMI 148
  
  Issues:
  1. Imposition of penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the assessee for concealing income from business and other sources.
  2. Whether the assessee's reliance on unreliable books justifies the rejection of concealment of income.
  3. Vicarious liability of the assessee for the misconduct of employees in filing inaccurate particulars of income.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  1. The judgment deals with appeals against penalties imposed on the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for concealing income. The assessee, an individual engaged in bus and lorry business, filed returns for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 showing income based on books later found to be inaccurate. Following a search revealing discrepancies, the Income-tax Officer proposed additions to the income, leading to penalties under section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment. The CIT (Appeals) partially upheld the penalties, considering the estimated income as indicative of concealment. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT (Appeals) decision, emphasizing the unassailability of the finding that the assessee concealed income from business and other sources.
  
  2. The assessee contended that the unreliable nature of the books justified the assessment based on estimates and precluded a finding of concealment. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, noting that the original return's income was based on falsified books, as admitted by the assessee's revised statement. The Tribunal found the assessee's reliance on incorrect books as an attempt to present a false picture of income, leading to the conclusion that concealment had occurred. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed under section 271(1)(c) for concealing income.
  
  3. Additionally, the assessee argued that being an elderly, uneducated, and sickly individual, she should not be held vicariously liable for the misconduct of employees in filing inaccurate income particulars. The Tribunal dismissed this argument, holding that the assessee could not evade responsibility for the inaccurate information presented in the returns. Even if the inaccuracies were due to the actions of employees, the assessee, as the taxpayer, bore the ultimate responsibility for ensuring the accuracy of the information provided. The Tribunal cited case law to support the principle that negligence or lack of awareness on the part of the assessee does not absolve them of liability for filing inaccurate particulars of income. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the penalties imposed under section 271(1)(c) on the assessee for concealing income, dismissing the appeals.

  ---

1 ....34567891011........ 14