TMI Blog1979 (6) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of the charcoal business. Since proper accounts were not maintained, the ITO estimated the sales at 3 times of the lease money paid and determined total sales at Rs. 2,58,000. On these sales he applied a net profit rate of 15 per cent and determined the net income of the assessee from charcoal business at Rs. 38,700. On appeal, the AAC reduced the estimated sales at 21/2 times of the lease money paid, but upheld the application of the net rate of 15 per cent. 4. Before us the ld. counsel of the assessee had submitted that a net rate of 15 per cent applied in this case was excessive. It was pleaded that during the asst. yrs. 1973-74 and 1974-75, net profit rate of 12 1/2 per cent was applied in this case and hence, the same basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per the provisions of s. 32 of the IT Act the truck in question was not owned by the assessee. 7. On appeal before the AAC, the ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the term "owner" has not been defined under the IT Act, and therefore, it was only the de facto owner i.e. the person who has control and enjoyment of the property that has to be taxed for this purpose. On the same analogy, it was argued that the assessee was the de facto owner of the truck and, hence was entitled to depreciation on the same. In this connection, the ld. counsel relied on the decision of the Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, reported in 1970 Taxation, Volume XXX, Part VI. In the above reported case the Tribunal, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the truck in question was registered in the name of the lady, there is nothing to suggest that the assessee was not the de facto owner of the said truck. The entire finance for the purchase of the truck was arranged by the assessee, the cost of the truck was shown in the books of accounts of the assessee and the income from the said truck was also being assessed in his hands. In this connection, it would be pertinent to reproduce the following observation of the Tribunal in the case of Shaik Babu, Sahib, Chittoor vs. ITO Chittoor reported in Taxation (1970) Volume XXX(6)-168: " The expression 'owned by the assessee' has not been defined, but, all the same, that expression must be understood not simply as departmental representative jur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
