TMI Blog1992 (5) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer on the ground that the said amount was paid beyond the previous year. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) noted that the assessee had deposited Rs. 28,900 as sales-tax vide cheque No. 858363 on 30th April, 1986, i.e., within the time allowed by the ST Act. As the amount was not payable before31st March, 1986, under the provisions of r. 41 of the ST Act, the CIT(A) held that the addition was not justified and deleted it. Before the Tribunal, the Revenue contended that the amount of Rs. 28,990 represents sales-tax collected by the assessee, but not paid before the close of the year and, therefore, the addition is justified. This issue was already considered in the case of Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores vs. Union of India ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed Rs. 21,000 stating that it was made for unverifiable and non-relating expenses, disallowed on estimate. The CIT(A) mentioned the explanation of the assessee that the appellant has taken up dealership of M/s Hindustan Motors Ltd.,Calcuttaand it necessitated visits to the factory atCalcuttafrom time to time. The travel agents bought the railway tickets and other expenses were incurred through them and payments were made through cheques. Finally, the CIT(A) decided that the expenses have been incurred for business purposes as their genuineness was not challenged. In the appeal, the contention of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) did not consider the fact that most of the vouchers were self vouchers and they even did not disclose the purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng proof that the cars were actually sold to the taxi owners. In the outset the manufacturer charged the entire excise duty and he debited it to the accounts of the dealers and on receiving proof for the sale of cars to taxi owners, Hindustan Motors put in their claim of refund of excise duty and when their claim was admitted they issued credit notes to the dealers. However, in order to safeguard its own interest, the assessee-company realized the difference of excise duty from the taxi owners and credited it to an account styled as Taxi Quota Excise Refund Account. During the relevant accounting year, it credited the sum of Rs. 64,151 to the said account after realizing them from ten taxi owners. As none of the taxi owners could get their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aracter of excise duty till the amount of refund was determined by the Department of central excise. This was countered by the learned authorised representative, who stated that in the sale bills for cars to taxi owners, the full amount of central excise duty is not collected but the reduced rate of central excise is collected at the prescribed rate for taxis. However, the difference between the rate for taxis and other cars was collected as a security deposit. He emphasised the fact that the assessment order did not dispute the claim of the assessee that the amount was collected as a security deposit and the CIT(A) also scrutinized the relevant bills. He further argued that once the basic fact of collection of the security deposit was ment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
