|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 441 Records
-
2003 (2) TMI 253
Issues:
1. Duty evasion on clearances of Cut-Tobacco and packaging material.
2. Submission of incorrect information on Form XXV-A.
3. Allegations of duty evasion and lack of proper documentation.
4. Cross-examination of drivers not allowed.
5. Liability for duty under Notification No. 356/86-C.E.
Analysis:
1. The case involved appeals against an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise regarding duty evasion on clearances of Cut-Tobacco and packaging material. The appellants, a manufacturing company, were found to have dispatched goods to a franchised unit, but discrepancies were noted in the documentation. The Revenue issued a show cause notice based on Form XXV-A, alleging duty evasion, leading to penalties imposed on the appellants.
2. The appellants contended that the goods were dispatched as per their records, including Cut-Tobacco and packaging material. They argued that the truck drivers incorrectly filled Form XXV-A at the Sales Tax barrier, mentioning only Cut-Tobacco to avoid paying duty on packaging material. They claimed the drivers acted independently without their knowledge and that the goods were received by the franchised unit as per records.
3. The Revenue's stance was that the Forms were signed by the appellants' officer, clearly indicating the consignment as only Cut-Tobacco, which was accepted by Sales Tax Authorities. They argued that duty evasion was not limited to the appellants but extended to the manufacturing unit using the tobacco in cigarettes without proper duty payment.
4. The Tribunal noted that the appellants admitted the submission of Form XXV-A by their drivers but disputed the contents. It was found that the appellants did not rectify the incorrect information submitted by their drivers, leading to duty evasion. The denial of cross-examination of drivers was addressed, stating that the Forms were prepared by the appellants' officer, not the drivers, as claimed.
5. Additionally, the appellants argued for liability under a specific notification for reduced duty, claiming the Cut-Tobacco was used in cigarette manufacturing. However, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the usage and receipt of Cut-Tobacco by the manufacturing unit, leading to a lack of proof for duty entitlement under the notification.
In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeals, finding no merit in the appellants' arguments and upholding the duty imposition based on the discrepancies in documentation and evasion attempts highlighted during the proceedings.
-
2003 (2) TMI 252
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi upheld the classification of imported goods as kraft paper under Heading 4804.59 of Customs Tariff. The redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 50,000.00 from Rs. 1 lakh. Appellants' contention of classifying the goods as scrap paper under heading 4070.90 was rejected.
-
2003 (2) TMI 225
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal can annul a proceeding for finalizing a provisional assessment on the ground of delay.
2. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in treating the assessment as provisional and permitting the department to finalize the same after a long delay.
3. Whether the delay in finalizing the provisional assessment caused prejudice to the appellant and violated principles of natural justice.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Annulment of Proceedings Due to Delay
The primary issue is whether the Tribunal has the authority to annul proceedings for finalizing a provisional assessment based on the delay. The appellant argued that the long delay in finalizing the assessment should prevent the department from proceeding. They cited several precedents, including the Bombay High Court's decision in *Bhagwandas S. Tolani v. B.C. Aggarwal & Others* and the Tribunal's decisions in *Bhagsons Paint Indust. (India) v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi* and *J.K. Rayons v. Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad*. However, the Tribunal noted that these cases involved different factual circumstances, such as the destruction of records or denial of a fair hearing, which were not present in the current case.
The Tribunal found that there is no statutory period of limitation for finalizing provisional assessments under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal emphasized that it cannot prescribe a time limit for completion of adjudication proceedings unless there is a specific statutory provision. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decisions in *Miles India Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Customs*, *Collector of Central Excise v. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills*, and *Union of India v. Kirloskar Penumatic Company*, which held that statutory authorities are bound by the provisions of the statute and cannot act contrary to it.
Issue 2: Error in Treating the Assessment as Provisional
The appellant contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in treating the assessment as provisional and allowing the department to finalize it after a long delay. The Tribunal noted that the duty was paid provisionally, and a bond was executed by the appellant on 6-2-87, indicating that the assessment was indeed provisional. The less charge demand was correctly set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) because such a demand cannot be raised without finalizing the assessment. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision that it was open to the department to finalize the assessment under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.
Issue 3: Prejudice and Violation of Natural Justice Due to Delay
The appellant argued that the long delay in finalizing the provisional assessment caused prejudice and violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal examined whether the delay resulted in any prejudice to the appellant or violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found no evidence that the appellant was unable to present relevant materials or defend against the allegations due to the delay. The appellant had multiple opportunities to present their case, including written submissions and personal hearings.
The Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not suffer any prejudice due to the delay, and there was no violation of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's contention was solely based on the delay, without demonstrating any specific prejudice or denial of a fair hearing.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that neither the Commissioner (Appeals) nor the Tribunal could annul the proceedings for finalizing the provisional assessment solely on the ground of delay. The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the department to finalize the assessment. The Tribunal reiterated that statutory authorities must act within the framework of the statute and cannot impose limitations not prescribed by law.
-
2003 (2) TMI 224
Issues:
Challenge to order disallowing refund of duty amount.
Analysis:
The appeal challenged the order-in-appeal affirming the order-in-original disallowing a refund of Rs. 2,52,678. The dispute arose when the Customs authorities alleged excess import quantity, leading to confiscation of goods with a fine and penalty imposed. Despite paying dues and clearing the goods, the appellants sought a refund. The Deputy Commissioner sanctioned a partial refund but refused the duty amount refund, directing it to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund due to the appellants' failure to prove non-passing of duty incidence. The appellants argued for duty refund based on the absence of a valid adjudication order, but the Tribunal upheld the decision, emphasizing the duty was deposited in compliance with the Assistant Collector's order. The appellants' failure to prove non-passing of duty incidence led to the denial of the duty refund, supported by legal precedents highlighting the importance of proving non-passing of duty incidence for refund eligibility.
In conclusion, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, dismissing the appeal as lacking merit. The judgment emphasized the necessity for appellants to demonstrate non-passing of duty incidence to claim a refund successfully. The legal analysis highlighted the importance of complying with adjudication orders and providing evidence to support refund claims. The judgment's reliance on legal precedents underscored the consistent application of principles related to duty refunds and unjust enrichment in customs cases. The detailed analysis provided a comprehensive overview of the issues involved and the reasoning behind the decision to deny the duty refund, ultimately upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) order.
-
2003 (2) TMI 223
Issues:
1. Ownership of goods in question.
2. Notice requirement under Section 124 of the Customs Act.
3. Claim for re-export of goods.
4. Challenge to confiscation order.
Ownership of goods in question:
The case involved a dispute regarding the ownership of goods imported by M/s. India Export House. M/s. Miralka Enterprises claimed to be the owner of the goods in question as the exporter, asserting that since the importer had not cleared the goods, they retained ownership. The appellants cited a Supreme Court decision and the adjudicating authority's observations to support their claim. However, the revenue contended that the goods were imported by M/s. India Export House and that the appellants never sought re-export until filing the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that ownership must be proven with evidence of whether title was transferred to the importer and if no consideration was received. The appellants were advised to approach the competent authority for re-export, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Notice requirement under Section 124 of the Customs Act:
The appellants argued that they were not issued a notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, which mandates notifying the owner before confiscation. They relied on legal precedents to support their contention. However, the revenue pointed out that the importer had already been through confiscation proceedings, and the appellants failed to challenge the initial order. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellants never requested re-export despite knowing the goods were uncleared. It was suggested that the appellants could seek re-export by approaching the competent authority for a decision in accordance with the law.
Claim for re-export of goods:
M/s. Miralka Enterprises sought to set aside the confiscation of the goods and requested re-export. The appellants never pursued re-export with the customs authority, even though they claimed ownership due to the importer's inaction. The Tribunal emphasized the appellants' obligation to provide evidence of ownership and lack of consideration received for the goods. The appellants were advised to apply for re-export through the competent authority, which would evaluate their request in compliance with legal provisions.
Challenge to confiscation order:
The appeal involved a challenge to the confiscation of goods and a plea for re-export. M/s. Miralka Enterprises contended that as the exporter, they retained ownership since the importer did not clear the goods. However, the revenue argued that the importer had already faced confiscation proceedings, which were not contested by the present appellants. The Tribunal highlighted the appellants' failure to seek re-export despite knowledge of the uncleared goods. The appellants were directed to approach the competent authority for re-export consideration, with the appeal being disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (2) TMI 216
Issues:
1. Appeal against order-in-appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals) regarding confiscation of imported goods.
2. Claim of ownership by another party and request for re-export of the goods.
3. Failure to approach customs authority for re-export despite knowledge of goods not being cleared by the importer.
Issue 1:
The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning the confiscation of imported goods. The case involved the import of rough blocks of Italian Marble by M/s. India Export House, where the goods were confiscated and a penalty imposed due to the failure to file a bill of entry. Subsequent appeals and orders led to the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The importer did not file any further appeal, leading to a new appeal filed by M/s. Miralka Enterprises challenging the confiscation, which was dismissed as non-maintainable.
Issue 2:
M/s. Miralka Enterprises claimed ownership of the goods in question and requested re-export, arguing that they were the exporters and thus the owners as the importer failed to clear the goods. They contended that no notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act had been issued to them, which is required before confiscation. The appellants relied on legal precedents and the adjudicating authority's observations to support their claim of ownership. However, the revenue argued that the appellants never sought re-export despite knowing the situation and that the importer had the opportunity to challenge previous confiscation orders. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellants needed to provide evidence of ownership transfer and lack of consideration for the goods, suggesting they approach the competent authority for re-export.
Issue 3:
Despite being aware that the goods were not cleared by the importer, M/s. Miralka Enterprises failed to approach the customs authority for re-export. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellants' failure to seek re-export, coupled with the importer's actions before the Customs authorities, impacted the ownership claim. The Tribunal directed the appellants to request re-export through the proper channels, allowing the competent authority to decide based on the law. The appeal was disposed of with this direction, emphasizing the importance of following the legal procedures for re-export.
This judgment underscores the significance of providing evidence of ownership transfer, the necessity of following legal procedures for re-export, and the implications of inaction in asserting ownership rights over imported goods.
-
2003 (2) TMI 215
Issues:
Challenge to order disallowing refund of duty amount.
Analysis:
In this appeal, the appellants contested the order-in-appeal affirming the order-in-original disallowing the refund of Rs. 2,52,678. The dispute arose when the Customs authorities alleged that the quantity of imported goods exceeded the declared quantity, leading to an adjudication by the Assistant Commissioner. The appellants paid the duty, fine, and penalty as per the adjudication order, but faced challenges in subsequent appeals due to technicalities like the adjudication order not being signed by the Assistant Collector. Despite various legal proceedings, the refund claim was denied by the Deputy Commissioner, upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).
The main contention raised was the absence of a valid adjudication order due to the Assistant Collector not signing it, entitling the appellants to a refund. However, the Tribunal found this argument misconceived. The duty amount was paid based on the adjudication order, and the appellants failed to prove they did not pass on the duty incidence to others. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellants themselves deposited the disputed duty amount, necessitating proof of non-passing of incidence to claim a refund. The findings of the authorities regarding the passing on of duty incidence were upheld, leading to the denial of cash refund and the order to deposit the amount in the Consumer Welfare Fund.
Legal precedents cited by the appellants were deemed inapplicable to the present case. The Tribunal distinguished cases related to unjust enrichment and utilization of accumulated credit, emphasizing the specific circumstances of the appellants' case. The appellants' failure to provide evidence of non-passing of duty incidence distinguished their situation from the precedents cited. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, dismissing the appeal for lacking merit.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision disallowing the refund of the duty amount, emphasizing the appellants' failure to prove non-passing of duty incidence and the specific circumstances of the case. The legal precedents cited were deemed irrelevant, and the appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.
-
2003 (2) TMI 210
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of cigarette packets under Tariff Item No. 17 of the Central Excise Tariff Act.
2. Interpretation of the terms 'boxes', 'cartons', 'bags', and 'other packing containers'.
3. Applicability of Exemption Notification No. 66/82-C.E, dated 28-2-1982.
4. Marketability and commercial understanding of cigarette packets.
5. Contextual statutory interpretation and dictionary meanings of relevant terms.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of Cigarette Packets:
The primary issue is whether cigarette packets should be classified as 'other packing containers' or 'boxes' under Tariff Item No. 17 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Department argued that cigarette packets are 'small paper boxes', whereas the respondent contended they are 'other packing containers'.
2. Interpretation of Relevant Terms:
The Court examined the terms 'boxes', 'cartons', 'bags', and 'other packing containers' within the context of Tariff Item No. 17. It emphasized that 'other packing container' is a residuary term and should not include 'boxes', 'cartons', or 'bags'. The Court referred to dictionary definitions to elucidate these terms:
- 'Box' is defined as a receptacle or container, usually with a lid.
- 'Packet' is a small or medium-sized container often made of cardboard.
- 'Container' is broadly defined as any object capable of holding goods, often for transport or storage.
3. Applicability of Exemption Notification No. 66/82-C.E:
The Exemption Notification exempts articles of paper or paperboard from excise duty, except for printed boxes and printed cartons. The Court noted that cigarette packets are printed and thus do not qualify for exemption under this notification.
4. Marketability and Commercial Understanding:
The Court considered whether cigarette packets are commercially known and marketable as 'boxes' or 'cartons'. It referred to previous judgments, including Punjab Anand Lamps Industries, which emphasized the importance of marketability and commercial recognition. The Court concluded that cigarette packets are marketable and thus should not be exempt from excise duty.
5. Contextual Statutory Interpretation:
The Court relied on the principle that words in a statute should be interpreted in their context and in harmony with related terms. It referred to the judgment in G. Claridge & Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, which discussed the interpretation of 'containers' in the context of the Central Excise Tariff. The Court reiterated that 'container' should be understood as a receptacle used for storage and transportation, analogous to boxes and cartons.
Conclusion:
The Court concluded that cigarette packets should be classified as 'boxes' under Tariff Item No. 17 and are not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 66/82-C.E. The Tribunal's order was set aside, and the Assistant Collector of Central Excise's orders were restored. The Court emphasized the importance of context, dictionary meanings, and marketability in statutory interpretation.
-
2003 (2) TMI 207
Whether there has to be a quid pro quo for the levy of fee in the sense that services and facilities ought to be available in the market area before a fee can be levied and if so the extent to which such services and amenities be available?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The law is well-settled that though quid pro quo is required in relation to a fee which is charged and collected by a market committee, the quid pro quo cannot be in exact proportion to the fee levied. Mathematical proportions are not possible in such matters. As accepted that some services and amenities were already provided for in the notified market area which fully justified the levy of market fee thus unable to agree with the finding of the High Court that the market committee had failed to provide any services or amenities in the notified market area. The findings of the High Court are accordingly set aside.
-
2003 (2) TMI 206
Sine qua non for levy of tax - Held that:- Appeal allowed. Unable to accept that such a course of action could be taken by the authorities even without any purchases of goods by a casual trader. The sine qua non for levy of tax under the Act is the purchase of the goods within the State of West Bengal. In the absence of any taxable event, the goods will not be liable to tax and, consequently, no transporter can be made liable to pay tax at the entry point for his failure to disclose the information which is required under Explanation 1 of section 2(1a-1) of the Act. We find no valid reason to hold that the said provisions are illegal much less unconstitutional, therefore, we are unable to sustain either the reasoning or the conclusion of the Tribunal that sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 4C of the Act and sub-rule (4) of rule 48L of the Rules are unconstitutional
-
2003 (2) TMI 197
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of service of notice under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958.
2. Compliance with Rule 63 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1959.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Direction for de novo assessment and the issue of limitation.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Service of Notice:
The primary issue was whether the service of notice for re-assessment under Section 19(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 was valid. The respondent-assessee argued that the notices were not properly served, as they were affixed at his previous address without following the prescribed procedure under Rule 63 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. The Assessing Officer had resorted to service by affixture because the respondent was not available at the given address. The revisional authority upheld the service by affixture as valid, but the High Court found procedural irregularities.
2. Compliance with Rule 63:
Rule 63 outlines the methods for serving notices, summons, or orders under the Act. The respondent contended that the Assessing Officer failed to record reasons for satisfaction that the respondent was evading service before resorting to affixture. The High Court agreed, stating that the procedural requirements under Rule 63 were not met, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The respondent-assessee claimed that the improper service of notice violated the principles of natural justice, as he was not given a fair opportunity to be heard. The High Court supported this view, leading to the direction for de novo assessment. The Supreme Court emphasized that non-issue or defective service of notice does not affect the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer if a reasonable opportunity of being heard is otherwise provided.
4. Direction for De Novo Assessment and Issue of Limitation:
The Single Judge directed a de novo assessment, which was challenged on the grounds that it did not reserve the right for the respondent to raise the plea of limitation. The Division Bench held that the direction for de novo assessment without considering the limitation was improper. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 19(1) does not explicitly require a "notice" but mandates a "reasonable opportunity of being heard." The Court concluded that the Single Judge was justified in ordering a de novo assessment, as the only interference was due to the alleged improper service of notice, not on the merits of the case.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, upholding the direction for de novo assessment by the Single Judge. It emphasized that the principles of natural justice were not entirely violated, and the procedural irregularity did not invalidate the service of notice, provided a reasonable opportunity to be heard was given. The Court also clarified that no opinion was expressed on any aspect except limitation, and the respondent was free to raise other issues before the Assessing Officer.
-
2003 (2) TMI 188
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Belated Return
2. Undisclosed Income Assessment
3. Depreciation on Trucks
4. Unabsorbed Depreciation
5. Pro-rata Depreciation
6. Claims of Expenses
7. Interest Claims
8. Advance Tax/TDS Credit
9. Income Computation for Specific Periods
10. Cash, Jewellery, and Silver Seizure
11. Share Profit from Firms
12. Household Expenses
13. Credits in Capital Account
14. Credits in Savings Bank Account
15. Investment in Wooden Logs
16. Investment in Equity Shares
17. Marriage Expenses
18. Loose Papers and Seized Materials
19. Investment in Shares
20. Dividend Estimation
21. Relief under Chapters VI-A and VII
22. Profit on Sale of Shares
23. Investment in Shares by Family Members
24. Dividend on Shares by Family Members
25. Share Transactions through Brokers
26. Investment in Property
27. Shares Pledged with Citibank
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Belated Return:
The Tribunal held that the belated return filed by the assessee was valid in law and directed the AO to take cognizance of the entire return and its accompaniments for the computation of income.
2. Undisclosed Income Assessment:
The assessee's contention that the undisclosed income should have been assessed at Rs. 36,21,770 instead of Rs. 2,93,78,183 was noted but did not call for specific comments as it was general and related to various additions made.
3. Depreciation on Trucks:
The Tribunal set aside the AO's orders and directed the AO to allow depreciation based on the actual cost of trucks to the assessee, considering the depreciation already allowed under the Act.
4. Unabsorbed Depreciation:
The Tribunal directed the AO to determine profits and losses on account of unabsorbed depreciation without setting off unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years and aggregate the income or loss as per section 158BB.
5. Pro-rata Depreciation:
The Tribunal directed the AO to allow depreciation at 50% of the allowable depreciation for the broken period.
6. Claims of Expenses:
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to consider the return filed by the assessee and allow the assessee to explain the nature and extent of expenses before readjudicating the issue.
7. Interest Claims:
The Tribunal held that interest is a permissible outgoing and fully allowable business expenditure. The AO was directed to verify the assessee's claim regarding interest with supporting data.
8. Advance Tax/TDS Credit:
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's request for credit of advance tax.
9. Income Computation for Specific Periods:
The Tribunal directed the AO to compute income based on books of account for the previous year ending on 31st March, 1996, and the broken period up to 12th Sept., 1996, as per section 158BB(1)(d).
10. Cash, Jewellery, and Silver Seizure:
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the cash balances of various Bafna group members and consider the entire family's jewellery and silver as a whole before making any additions.
11. Share Profit from Firms:
The Tribunal held that the share profit from various firms for the assessment years 1987-88 to 1992-93 could not be considered undisclosed income as the returns were regularly filed and on record before the search.
12. Household Expenses:
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the figures of withdrawals shown by the assessee for household expenses and delete the addition if the withdrawals were found to be correct.
13. Credits in Capital Account:
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the details of credits in the capital account filed before the CIT and readjudicate the issue after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
14. Credits in Savings Bank Account:
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to verify the details of credits in the savings bank account and readjudicate the issue after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
15. Investment in Wooden Logs:
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the payments made for the purchase of wooden logs from the books of account and readjudicate the issue after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
16. Investment in Equity Shares:
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the source of investment in shares and readjudicate the issue after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
17. Marriage Expenses:
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the withdrawals made for marriage expenses and readjudicate the issue. The addition for the marriage of Rajendra G. Bafna was retained as fair and reasonable.
18. Loose Papers and Seized Materials:
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to go through the detailed submissions and readjudicate the issue after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
19. Investment in Shares:
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the charts filed regarding investment in shares and readjudicate the issue after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
20. Dividend Estimation:
The Tribunal directed the AO to add only the dividend actually declared by the respective company in the hands of the respective persons in the group.
21. Relief under Chapters VI-A and VII:
The Tribunal directed the AO to give relief under Chapters VI-A and VII after verification, as per the Tribunal's decision in Control Touch Electronics (Pune) (P) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT.
22. Profit on Sale of Shares:
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to examine the profit on sale of shares in light of the submissions made by the assessee and readjudicate the issue.
23. Investment in Shares by Family Members:
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to verify the investment in shares by Swati G. Bafna and readjudicate the issue.
24. Dividend on Shares by Family Members:
The Tribunal directed the AO to add only the dividend actually declared by the respective company in the hands of the respective persons in the group.
25. Share Transactions through Brokers:
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to verify the share transactions made through brokers and readjudicate the issue.
26. Investment in Property:
The Tribunal deleted the additions made on account of investment in property at Ambegaon as there was no material found during the search indicating any additional investment over and above the price recorded in the purchase deeds.
27. Shares Pledged with Citibank:
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to follow the directions of the CIT and obtain details of the cost of acquisition of shares pledged with Citibank for rectificatory proceedings.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision involved setting aside many issues to the AO for fresh adjudication after proper verification and providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering the belated return filed by the assessee and directed the AO to follow the due procedure and principles of natural justice in reassessing the income and related issues.
-
2003 (2) TMI 187
Issues:
1. Levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C when income assessed under section 115JA of the IT Act, 1961.
2. Applicability of legal provisions and case laws in determining interest charges.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Levy of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C
The appeal raised concerns regarding the imposition of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the IT Act when the income was assessed under the deeming provisions of section 115JA. The appellant argued that interest should not be charged in such circumstances. However, the CIT(A) upheld the interest levy citing the failure of the appellant to pay advance tax as per section 208 of the Act. The CIT(A) emphasized that advance tax is payable on total income, including income computed under section 115JA, and hence, interest under sections 234B and 234C was rightly imposed.
Issue 2: Applicability of Legal Provisions and Case Laws
The appellant contended that interest should be canceled as the income was determined under section 115JA, and reliance was placed on the decision of the Karnataka High Court. However, the CIT(A) favored the decision of the Gauhati High Court, which held that interest was justified even when income was computed under section 115JA. The appellant further argued for deletion of interest charges, citing various Supreme Court decisions and previous rulings in favor of the assessee. The Departmental Representative supported the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the correctness of following the Gauhati High Court ruling.
Judgment and Conclusion
After considering arguments from both sides and analyzing relevant legal provisions and case laws, the Tribunal found that the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C was justified even when income was determined under section 115JA. The Tribunal emphasized that the statutory scheme required the payment of advance tax based on total income, including income computed under section 115JA. Upholding the CIT(A)'s decision, the Tribunal followed the Gauhati High Court ruling and other supportive decisions, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's appeal. The Tribunal concluded that the interest charges were valid and upheld the order of the CIT(A).
-
2003 (2) TMI 182
Issues Involved:
1. Status of the Assessee as a 'Local Authority' under Section 10(20) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Eligibility for exemption under Section 10(20A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Status as an instrumentality of the State under Article 289 of the Constitution of India.
4. Eligibility for exemption as a Trust under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
5. Classification of income from interest and house property.
6. Carry forward and set off of losses.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Status as a 'Local Authority' under Section 10(20):
The Assessee claimed exemption under Section 10(20) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arguing that it should be considered a 'Local Authority' as defined under Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. R.C. Jain laid down five attributes for an entity to be considered a 'Local Authority':
- Separate legal existence as corporate bodies.
- Function in a defined area with members elected by the inhabitants.
- Certain degree of autonomy.
- Entrusted with governmental functions usually assigned to municipal bodies.
- Power to raise funds through taxes, rates, charges, or fees.
The Tribunal found that the Assessee did not fulfill several of these attributes:
- It did not function in a defined area as its jurisdiction was not clearly demarcated.
- There was no popular representation of the inhabitants of the area.
- The Assessee lacked autonomy as it was heavily controlled by the State Government.
- It was not entrusted with functions typically performed by municipal bodies.
- It did not have the power to levy taxes or compulsory exactions.
Thus, the Assessee was not considered a 'Local Authority' and was assessed as a company.
2. Eligibility for Exemption under Section 10(20A):
Section 10(20A) exempts income of an authority constituted for housing accommodation or for planning, development, or improvement of cities, towns, and villages. The Tribunal held that the Assessee was established primarily for completing irrigation projects, not for planning or developing cities, towns, or villages. The rehabilitation activities under Section 50 of the VIDC Act were incidental and performed by the State Government, not the Assessee. Therefore, the Assessee did not qualify for exemption under Section 10(20A).
3. Status as an Instrumentality of the State under Article 289:
The Assessee argued that it should be exempt under Article 289(1) of the Constitution, which exempts income of a State from Union taxation. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corpn. v. ITO, which held that statutory corporations are separate legal entities and their income cannot be considered as income of the State. Thus, the Assessee was not exempt under Article 289.
4. Eligibility for Exemption as a Trust under Section 11:
The Assessee claimed exemption as a trust under Section 11. The Tribunal noted that for such exemption, the entity must be registered under Section 12A and have a trust deed. The Assessee did not meet these requirements and was not considered a trust. The Tribunal also cited the Supreme Court's decision in U.P. Forest Corpn., which emphasized the need for registration and compliance with Section 12A for claiming exemption under Section 11.
5. Classification of Income from Interest and House Property:
The Assessee argued that interest income and income from house property should be treated as business income and allowed to be capitalized. The Tribunal held that since the Assessee had not commenced business, no business income could be recognized. Instead, the interest income was classified under 'Income from Other Sources' and the rental income under 'Income from House Property'. The Tribunal disallowed the deduction of interest paid to bondholders under Section 57, as the borrowing was for project completion, not for earning interest income.
6. Carry Forward and Set Off of Losses:
The Assessee claimed carry forward of losses. The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's view that under Section 42(2) of the VIDC Act, any deficit was to be borne by the State Government. Since the Assessee had not commenced business, no business loss could be claimed, and all expenses were to be capitalized. Consequently, the Assessee could not claim set off or carry forward of losses.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Assessee's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order that the Assessee is not a 'Local Authority', does not qualify for exemptions under Sections 10(20A) or 11, and is not an instrumentality of the State under Article 289. The income was correctly classified, and the carry forward of losses was rightly disallowed.
-
2003 (2) TMI 179
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice and jurisdiction u/s 158BD.
2. Estimation of undisclosed income from various sources.
3. Treatment of loans, gifts, and other receipts as undisclosed income.
4. Disclosure of income and investments prior to the search.
Summary:
1. Validity of Notice and Jurisdiction u/s 158BD:
The assessee challenged the validity of the notice served u/s 158BD, arguing it was not served within the required timeframe. The Tribunal held that the scheme of block assessment does not prescribe a specific time for issuing a notice but only for completing the assessment. Therefore, the notice served on 18-3-1997 was valid, and the jurisdiction assumed by the Assessing Officer was proper.
2. Estimation of Undisclosed Income from Various Sources:
The Assessing Officer estimated the undisclosed income from M/s Bharani Yolkam International, Bharani Real Estate, and Sri Bala & Co. based on seized documents and materials. The Tribunal found that the income from M/s Bharani Yolkam International was estimated without any incriminating evidence from the search and thus was not sustainable. Similarly, the disallowance of a portion of the agricultural income and treating it as non-agricultural was also on an estimate basis and not supported by evidence from the search.
3. Treatment of Loans, Gifts, and Other Receipts as Undisclosed Income:
The Assessing Officer treated loans from various persons, gifts received, and other receipts as undisclosed income. The Tribunal held that the details of these loans were already disclosed to the Income-tax Department through a letter dated 15-5-1995, and thus could not be treated as undisclosed income. However, the gifts amounting to Rs. 1,20,700 were not satisfactorily explained and were rightly treated as undisclosed income. The interest accrued in the bank accounts of the assessee's minor children was also correctly clubbed u/s 64 and treated as undisclosed income.
4. Disclosure of Income and Investments Prior to the Search:
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument that the details of investments, sources of income, and other particulars were disclosed to the Income-tax Department before the search through a letter dated 15-5-1995. Therefore, these could not be treated as undisclosed income. The Tribunal emphasized that disclosure for the purposes of the Act does not mean only through filing returns but also through compliance with statutory requisitions like those u/s 131.
Final Computation:
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the undisclosed income as follows:
1. Undisclosed income returned by the assessee: Rs. 2,31,098.
2. Amount of gifts not accepted: Rs. 1,20,700.
3. Clubbing of interest u/s 64: Rs. 30,375.
4. Revised undisclosed income: Rs. 3,82,173.
Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal deleting several additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirming only the additions related to gifts and clubbed interest.
-
2003 (2) TMI 177
Issues:
Single issue disputing the learned CIT(A)'s impugned order in not cancelling the assessment order and not deleting the addition of Rs. 50,650 made by the AO in the cost of construction on the basis of valuation report of AVO.
Analysis:
The appellant raised four grounds of appeal, all related to the addition made by the AO in the cost of construction. The appellant contended that the AO did not consider the detailed accounts and vouchers provided, instead making a reference to AVO for valuation. The appellant argued that the AO's action was contrary to legal precedents and that the AVO's valuation report had several defects. The appellant also highlighted that the AVO based the valuation on CPWD rates, not local PWD rates, and did not consider self-supervision charges. The Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities' decision. The Tribunal analyzed relevant legal positions from previous cases, emphasizing the importance of maintaining proper accounts and the preference for State PWD rates over CPWD rates for construction cost estimation.
The Tribunal found that the AO did not adequately consider the appellant's detailed accounts and vouchers, nor did he provide specific reasons for rejecting them. The AVO's valuation based on CPWD rates was deemed inappropriate, especially considering the appellant's plea for self-supervision charges. The Tribunal criticized the CIT(A)'s order, which directed the appellant to file a rectification petition without addressing the merits of the appeal. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's reference to AVO and the subsequent addition to the cost of construction were unjustified. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and deleted the addition made by the AO.
In summary, the Tribunal's decision focused on the AO's failure to consider the appellant's detailed accounts and vouchers, the inappropriate use of CPWD rates by the AVO, and the lack of justification for the addition to the construction cost. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following legal precedents regarding the acceptance of properly maintained accounts and the preference for local PWD rates in construction cost estimation.
-
2003 (2) TMI 175
Issues involved:
1. Admissibility of additional evidence (excise register).
2. Sustenance of trading addition of Rs. 1,44,286.
3. Deletion of addition of Rs. 8,22,806 to the trading account.
4. Deletion of disallowance of telephone expenses of Rs. 69,614.
5. Deletion of disallowance of Rs. 4,78,702 on foreign travel expenses.
6. Reduction of trading addition by Rs. 60,000.
7. Deletion of disallowance of Rs. 1,25,442 under s. 43B of the Act.
8. Treatment of Rs. 9,84,936 as deemed dividend under s. 2(22)(e) of the IT Act, 1961.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Admissibility of additional evidence (excise register):
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's request to admit the excise register as additional evidence. Despite directions, the assessee failed to produce the register before the AO on the appointed day or thereafter. The Tribunal emphasized that the issue could not be kept pending beyond the limitation period, and thus, the prayer for admitting the stock register was denied.
2. Sustenance of trading addition of Rs. 1,44,286:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the trading addition of Rs. 1,44,286. The assessee did not produce the stock register or necessary bills and entries regarding purchases, sales, expenses, and receipts before the AO. Consequently, the books of account were liable to be rejected, and the addition was justified.
3. Deletion of addition of Rs. 8,22,806 to the trading account:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground regarding the deletion of the addition of Rs. 8,22,806. The CIT(A) had held that the provisions of s. 145 were not attracted, and there was no justification for the addition. The Tribunal found no authorization or supporting evidence from the CIT, Jaipur, and thus, the ground was dismissed as not pressed.
4. Deletion of disallowance of telephone expenses of Rs. 69,614:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground regarding the deletion of telephone expenses disallowance. The CIT(A) had held that no disallowance could be made in the case of a company. The Tribunal found no authorization or supporting evidence from the CIT, Jaipur, and thus, the ground was dismissed as not pressed.
5. Deletion of disallowance of Rs. 4,78,702 on foreign travel expenses:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground regarding the deletion of foreign travel expenses disallowance. The CIT(A) had held that the entire expenses were allowable under s. 37 of the Act. The Tribunal found no authorization or supporting evidence from the CIT, Jaipur, and thus, the ground was dismissed as not pressed.
6. Reduction of trading addition by Rs. 60,000:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground regarding the reduction of trading addition by Rs. 60,000. The CIT(A) had admitted fresh evidence in violation of r. 46A of the IT Rules, 1962. The Tribunal found no authorization or supporting evidence from the CIT, Jaipur, and thus, the ground was dismissed as not pressed.
7. Deletion of disallowance of Rs. 1,25,442 under s. 43B of the Act:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground regarding the deletion of disallowance under s. 43B of the Act. The CIT(A) had admitted fresh evidence without following the provisions of r. 46A of the IT Rules, 1962. The Tribunal found no authorization or supporting evidence from the CIT, Jaipur, and thus, the ground was dismissed as not pressed.
8. Treatment of Rs. 9,84,936 as deemed dividend under s. 2(22)(e) of the IT Act, 1961:
The Tribunal held that Rs. 1,25,936, representing the current year's profit, should be treated as deemed dividend under s. 2(22)(e) of the IT Act, 1961. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's plea to set off unabsorbed depreciation and losses against accumulated profits. It was determined that the amount of state capital investment subsidy and other subsidies received by M/s Supreme Metprodes Ltd. were capital receipts and not accumulated profits. Consequently, the Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order to treat Rs. 1,25,936 as deemed dividend.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's appeal, resulting in the treatment of Rs. 1,25,936 as deemed dividend under s. 2(22)(e) of the IT Act, 1961.
-
2003 (2) TMI 173
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice under Section 148.
2. Estimation of income from pathology.
3. Addition under Section 69 for investment in the purchase of a plot.
4. Addition under Section 69 for investment in construction of house property.
5. Addition of cash credit.
6. Levy of interest under Sections 234A and 234B.
Detailed Analysis of Judgment:
1. Validity of Notice under Section 148:
The assessee challenged the notice issued under Section 148, arguing it was without jurisdiction and non est in law. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not recorded specific reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment before issuing the notice, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 147. The Tribunal cited several judgments, including ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das and United Electrical Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, which emphasize the necessity of recording reasons for such a belief. The Tribunal concluded that the notice issued was based on a reason to suspect rather than a reason to believe, thus deeming it invalid and allowing the additional ground in favor of the assessee.
2. Estimation of Income from Pathology:
The assessee contested the estimation of income from pathology at Rs. 40,000 against the declared Rs. 27,040. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities based their estimation on the location of the laboratory and the non-maintenance of books of accounts. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee was not obligated to maintain books of accounts under Section 44AA(1) read with Rule 6F of the IT Rules, as the receipts of the previous three years did not exceed the prescribed limit. The Tribunal also observed that the daily test register maintained by the assessee showed no discrepancies. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed this ground in favor of the assessee, directing the AO to delete the addition.
3. Addition under Section 69 for Investment in Purchase of Plot:
The assessee disputed the addition of Rs. 10,000 under Section 69 for investment in the purchase of a plot. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a declaration and acceptance of the gift from her father-in-law, explaining the source of the gifted amount. The Tribunal saw no reason to doubt the donor's version and noted that the lower authorities had not pointed out any discrepancies in the declaration. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed this ground in favor of the assessee and directed the AO to delete the addition.
4. Addition under Section 69 for Investment in Construction of House Property:
The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 1,01,150 under Section 69 for investment in house construction. The Tribunal found that the AO had referred the property to the valuation cell without recording reasons for doubting the declared cost of construction. The Tribunal cited the decision in M. Selvaraj vs. ITO, which held that the AO must record reasons for such a referral. The Tribunal also noted procedural lapses, such as the denial of the assessee's request to cross-examine the Assistant Valuation Officer (AVO) and the use of CPWD rates instead of local rates. The Tribunal concluded that the valuation report was not reliable and deleted the addition, allowing this ground in favor of the assessee.
5. Addition of Cash Credit:
The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 15,050 as cash credit in the name of Shri Kailashchandra. The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed submitted a confirmation letter from the creditor, which was evident from the certified copy obtained from the Department. The Tribunal saw no reason for the lower authorities to make and sustain the addition based on the alleged non-filing of the confirmation. Therefore, the Tribunal deleted the addition and allowed this ground in favor of the assessee.
6. Levy of Interest under Sections 234A and 234B:
The assessee argued against the levy of interest under Sections 234A and 234B. However, the Tribunal, citing the Supreme Court decision in Kalyankumar Ray vs. CIT, found no substance in this ground and rejected it.
Revenue's Appeal:
1. Reduction of Unexplained Investment in Purchase of Plot:
The Revenue challenged the reduction of unexplained investment in the purchase of a plot to Rs. 10,000 from Rs. 1,13,595. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s detailed order, which considered the encashment of FDRs and other evidence. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision and rejected this ground.
2. Reduction of Unexplained Investment in Construction of House:
The Revenue also contested the reduction of unexplained investment in house construction to Rs. 1,01,150 from Rs. 1,96,200. The Tribunal had already addressed this issue in the assessee's appeal and found the valuation report unreliable. Following the same reasoning, the Tribunal rejected this ground in the Revenue's appeal.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the additions related to pathology income, investment in the plot, construction of house property, and cash credit, while rejecting the ground related to interest under Sections 234A and 234B. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s reductions in unexplained investments.
-
2003 (2) TMI 172
Issues:
Challenge to order under section 263 by assessee, applicability of section 263 to intimation issued under section 143(1), proper maintenance of records, estimation of sales and net profit in case of liquor contractor, power of Commissioner under section 263, discretion of Assessing Officer in selecting cases for scrutiny, time limit for issuing notice under section 143(2).
Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Indore involved the challenge by the assessee against the order passed under section 263 by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Ujjain. The Commissioner found discrepancies in the assessee's records, particularly related to the availability of sale vouchers and the estimation of sales and net profit. The Commissioner held that the Assessing Officer should have conducted proper inquiries before finalizing the assessment, considering the comments made by auditors regarding the lack of proper documentation. The Commissioner concluded that the order under section 143(1)(a) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue, directing the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order under section 143(3)/144 of the Act.
During the proceedings, the assessee's representative argued that the intimation issued under section 143(1) should not be subject to revision under section 263, as no adjustments were permitted after a certain date, and the Assessing Officer's discretion in issuing notices under section 143(2) was highlighted. The representative contended that the time limit for issuing notices under section 143(2) should be respected, and the principles regarding the estimation of sales and net profit in the case of a liquor contractor were debated, citing relevant case laws and tribunal decisions.
On the other hand, the Departmental Representative argued that the intimation under section 143(1) could be revised under section 263, emphasizing the wide powers conferred on the Commissioner and the importance of conducting proper inquiries. The Departmental Representative relied on legal precedents to support the position that the Assessing Officer should not have ignored the auditor's report findings.
After considering both parties' submissions and reviewing the relevant material and case laws, the Tribunal held that the intimation under section 143(1) could be subject to revision under section 263. However, in this case, since the intimation was issued after a specific date with no power for adjustments, it could not be considered erroneous. The Tribunal emphasized the Assessing Officer's discretion in selecting cases for scrutiny within the prescribed time limit and concluded that the Commissioner's order under section 263 was not justified. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the Commissioner's order.
In summary, the Tribunal's decision focused on the proper application of sections 143 and 263, the Assessing Officer's discretion in scrutiny, the time limit for issuing notices, and the requirements for an order to be considered erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interests. The judgment clarified the scope of revision under section 263 and the importance of following procedural and substantive laws in tax assessments.
-
2003 (2) TMI 171
Issues involved:
1. Classification of the assessee-company as an investment company.
2. Applicability of Explanation to Section 73 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Treatment of losses from share transactions as speculation losses.
4. Consideration of the decrease in the value of shares as part of speculation loss.
5. Classification of the purchase and sale of yarn as speculative activity.
6. Eligibility for set-off of carried forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of the assessee-company as an investment company:
The assessee-company argued that it should be classified as an investment company based on its Memorandum of Association and its investments in shares shown in the Balance Sheet. However, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found that this classification was not relevant for the application of Explanation to Section 73. The Tribunal emphasized that the composition of the gross total income, rather than the nature of investments, was the determining factor.
2. Applicability of Explanation to Section 73 of the Income Tax Act:
The Explanation to Section 73 was invoked by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's gross total income did not consist mainly of specified categories of income such as interest on securities, income from house property, capital gains, and income from other sources. The Tribunal cited the decisions of the Calcutta High Court in Aryasthan Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT and Eastern Aviation & Industries Ltd. v. CIT to support the application of the Explanation, concluding that the loss from share transactions should be treated as speculation loss.
3. Treatment of losses from share transactions as speculation losses:
The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) treated the loss from share transactions as speculation loss, which could not be set off against other incomes. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting that the substantial loss from share transactions indicated that the gross total income did not consist mainly of the specified categories of income. The Tribunal also referred to the decision in Prudential Construction Co. Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT, which supported the inclusion of the decrease in the value of shares as part of speculation loss.
4. Consideration of the decrease in the value of shares as part of speculation loss:
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the decrease in the value of shares should be considered as part of the speculation loss. The Tribunal cited the decision in Prudential Construction Co. Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT, which held that the value of opening and closing stock forms an integral part of the computation of profit or loss from share trading. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's argument that the decrease in the value of shares was a notional figure and should not be considered as part of the speculation loss.
5. Classification of the purchase and sale of yarn as speculative activity:
The Tribunal did not entertain the assessee's plea to classify the purchase and sale of yarn as speculative activity. The Tribunal noted that this plea was raised for the first time before the Tribunal and required investigation into fresh facts. The Tribunal emphasized that such a plea could not be entertained for the first time at the appellate stage, especially when it was not raised before the Assessing Officer or in response to the show-cause notice issued by the CIT(A).
6. Eligibility for set-off of carried forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation:
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to examine the issue of set-off for carried forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years against the income of the year under appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not taken a ground on this issue before the Tribunal, nor was it argued during the hearing. However, the Tribunal deemed it fair to direct the Assessing Officer to consider this issue, given the finding that the transactions of purchase and sale of shares constituted speculation activity.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), rejecting the contentions of the assessee and confirming the treatment of losses from share transactions as speculation losses. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to examine the eligibility for set-off of carried forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The assessee's appeal was dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
