9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admitted by learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), it was mentioned that on verification in the case of M/s. Bellary Steel & Alloys Ltd. (in short BSAL) and the statement of Mr. Madhava, the then M.D. of BSAL, an opinion was formed by the Assessing Officer that transaction of the assessee-company with BSAL may be bogus. Such transaction was a lease transaction and on the basis of which the assessee has claimed depreciation to the extent of Rs. 1,67,23,582. Before the learned CIT(A), the learned A.R. relied on the following judgments on the issue that reopening is not valid. (i) CIT v. Nedungadi Bank Ltd. [2003] 264 ITR 545 (Ker.) (ii) Oil & Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 648 (Uttaranchal) (iii) Parashuram Pottery Work Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC). 2.2 The learned CIT(A), has recorded his findings in para 3.5 of his order. As per the learned CIT(A), the assessment was reopened on the basis of survey under section 133A conducted on the premises of BSAL, Bellary. During such survey it was found that M.S. Rolls given on lease by appellant company to BSAL were not existing. This new information warranted the reopening of assessment. Original as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fully or partly some material facts necessary for assessment Bawa Abhai Singh v. Dy. CIT [2002] 253 ITR 83 (Delhi). 3. We have heard both the parties. It is a fact that notice under section 148 has been issued before the end of four years of the assessment year for which reopening has been done. In such a case notice can be issued in case it falls under Explanation 2( b) to section 147. As per this Explanation 2(b), the case will be deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in case where no assessment has been made and it is noticed by the Assessing Officer that assessee has understated the income or has claimed excessive loss, deduction, allowance or relief in the return. Section 143(1) speaks about the intimation. Assessment is made under section 143(3) and such assessment is made after issue of notice under section 143(2). In the instant case, before issue of notice under section 148, no notice under section 143(2) had been issued and no assessment had been made under section 143(3). Intimation cannot be equated with assessment. For this proposition the learned D.R. had rightly relied on the judgment of Delhi High Court in Mahanagar Telephone Nig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L in pursuance of lease agreement and the receipt of lease rent in the course of its business and accordingly the depreciation was rightly claimed by the appellant which was required to be allowed. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the findings of the assessing authority that the lease was bogus, which was based on the statement obtained from BSAL in the course of survey under section 133A of the Act. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the assessing authority did not give opportunity to the appellant for rebuttal of the information obtained behind the back and also he ought to have appreciated that the appellant was not given the opportunity to cross-examine the persons who had been examined and who had given adverse statement against the appellant. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the information obtained against the appellant were made use of to justify the disallowance which was opposed to the principles of natural justice in that no adequate opportunity was given to the appellant in this regard and accordingly the impugned disallowance and additions were opposed to law and liable to be deleted. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,702 rolls which were obtained on lease. It could not explain the discrepancy and whereabouts of the remaining rolls. (vii)None of the rolls in its possession contained distinctive markings of the financiers/lessors who leased these rolls. (viii)All the three transporters viz., Noble Roadlines, Mumbai, Sri Balaji Roadways and M/s. Madras Goods Movers, Chennai have clearly stated that they transported only bulk scrap and coal to the above company and denied to have transported M.S. rolls. Further, both the Chennai transporters stated that the bills and signatures found in assessee's premises are forged. (ix)Any machinery parts including SCGI Rolls transported into Karnataka State is liable for 2 per cent of entry tax but, lessee could not produce any evidence for payment of entry tax. (x)The so-called supplier viz., M/s. B.H. Enterprises, M/s. B.H. International at Mumbai and B.M. Steels (P.) Ltd. Chennai were enquired as to whether they had supplied the rolls to the lessee. Both the suppliers of Mumbai have denied that they have supplied any rolls to the assessee but confirmed the fact that these bills were raised to facilitate financing from credit institutions and sale proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n do not contain the seal of sales tax check post though such rolls came from Maharashtra to Karnataka. (d)Neither the appellant nor KMFL furnished any document or proof for negotiating the supply of rolls from the supplier. (e)Original transport bills, original delivery challans and original report of commissioning not produced. (f)DDIT (Inv.) made enquiries and ascertained the weight of different coils. Weight of different types of coil is mentioned by Assessing Officer in his order. On the basis of such details, the Assessing Officer worked out the weight of coils transported through different invoices as under : Invoice No. No. of coils Weight of the coils Lorry No. 1088 26 49.9 tons MH-01-H-445 1089 24 50.2 tons KA-25-6772 1090 24 45.15 tons KA-25-9886 1092 29 59.9 tons MH-01-H-7129 A normal lorry having capacity of 10 tons cannot carry the above referred huge weight. (g)Investigation authorities recorded the statement of lorry driver and owners of the lorries. It was admitted by them that the said coils were never transported to BSAL. (h)The above lorries have not passed through the check post. On the basis of the above facts, a show-cause notice wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o purchased the assets. The appellant has obtained such assets under hire purchase agreement. It was argued that assets are identifiable even as of today. It was argued that opportunity in form of cross examination should have been given to the appellant to rebut the adverse statement given by the parties. In absence of such opportunity, reliance on the statements cannot be made. The Assessing Officer in his remand report submitted that statement of Mr. Dinesan was recorded in the presence of the A.R. of the appellant. 4.5 In rejoinder to remand report, the learned A.R. submitted that opportunity of cross examination cannot be equated with the recording of statement in the presence of A.R. of the appellant. Onus was on the Assessing Officer to have established that transaction is not genuine. 4.6 The learned CIT(A) required an additional report from Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer stated that inspector visited the premises of BSAL and found that marking of "MAA Rolls" is appearing on 103 rolls in 8 lots. The learned CIT(A) held : (a)Since Mr. Dinesan of KMFL was examined in the presence of A.R. of the appellant, hence the learned A.R. cannot take the plea that he was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment/letter were given to the appellant. (a)Copy of letters of Shri Madhava. (b)Copy of statement of Shri Himanshu R. Mehta. (c)Copy of statement of Shri Dinesh. In spite of several requests for cross-examination the appellant has not been provided that opportunity. It is true that statement of Shri Dinesh was recorded in the presence of A.R. of the appellant but A.R. was not permitted to protect the interest of the appellant. It was submitted that A.R. was denied the opportunity to cross-examine. The various other statements that have been relied upon though mentioned as forming part of the assessment records have not been given to the appellant for rebuttal or cross-examination. These statements have been given to the appellant before the Tribunal. Those statements are contradictory to each other and are therefore not reliable statements of proprietor of Noble Roadlines was recorded in June 2000 while reassessment proceedings have been initiated in February, 2001. These statements are not at the request of the appellant. Such persons are not the witnesses of the appellant. Such persons are witnesses of the department and it is for the department to substantiate its witness. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... city of manufacture but D.G.M. of BSAL stated that such persons have earlier supplied the rolls. Books of account of supplier are not traceable. It is further maintained that lessee has not maintained stock register. Non-maintenance of stock register by BSAL should not be held against the appellant. Copies of transport bills were provided by the BSAL and such bills contained the receipt, seal of BSAL. D.G.M., G.M. & M.D. of BSAL have been examined but the department has not questioned them on the genuineness of transport bills. It is being stated that bills produced by appellant do not tally with the bills produced by KMFL. There is nothing on record to infer as to how such bills were procured by KMFL. Statement of Shri Dinesh of KMFL has been proved wrong on the issue of sales tax. It is being argued by the department that Shri Dinesh was questioned about the veracity of the transport bills and he denied the same but such denial is not coming out of the statement of Shri Dinesh. In fact, the appellant produced its copies of bills only after the statement was recorded from Shri Dinesh and there could be no occasion for the Assessing Officer to confront Shri Dinesh with regard to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he company went before BIFR. The appellant is still to receive lakhs from BSAL and criminal proceedings have been initiated against BSAL and its M.D. In transaction of lease, it is normal for lessee to arrange for lifting of the plant and machinery from the premises of the supplier or for the supplier to deliver at the premises of BSAL. The appellant is interested only in getting the confirmation of delivery on the consignment note of the transporter with the seal of BSAL confirming the receipt of material. 4.10 In the case decided by Karnataka High Court of Avasarala Automation Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 178, the existing assets were sold and leased back to the vendor of that machinery. There was no registration of sale, nor was an identification of machinery. The appellant's case is completely different from the above insofar as the machinery has been purchased not from BSAL but from the third party. It was leased to BSAL, concerned sales tax paid, concerned insurance has also been paid. The assets were identifiable and have also been identified. It is also mentioned that lease rentals have been assessed in subsequent years and taxes have been paid on the same. It is only fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iabilities in the event of destruction of assets. (f)Since the transaction between appellant and KMFL has not been disbelieved, the asset would stand in the balance sheet of the appellant and since the asset has been used in the business of leasing, the appellant is entitled to depreciation. 4.13 The learned D.R. has also filed the written submissions. As per written submission, usual procedure followed in lease transaction and documents/records required to be kept in such transaction has been described as under : "The lessee who actually uses the rolls, places an order with the supplier of the rolls specifying the number of rolls, their specifications, quality and other details. As the lessee does not have money to finance the purchase of the said rolls, he enters into a lease agreement with the lessors for lease of the said rolls. The lessors, who are mostly the finance companies directly make payment of the rolls to the suppliers. The rolls are sent directly to the lessee's premises by the supplier. Soon after the receipt of the Rolls, the lessee forwards a copy of the invoice, delivery challan, lorry receipt and installation report to the lessor acknowledging of the receipt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etter of learned CIT(A) dated 20-1-2003. (h)Another report of Assessing Officer dated 20-12-2004 along with inspector's report. (i)Even before learned CIT(A); the appellant was not able to produce the original transportation bills and delivery challans. 4.15 Thereafter the learned D.R. pointed out the discrepancies noticed in the case of appellant and such discrepancies suggested that transaction of lease of M.S. Rolls is sham and not genuine. (i )No documents were found to show that written orders were placed to obtain the rolls on lease. No correspondence like obtaining quotations, providing specifications etc. with supplier found during survey of BSAL and no such details filed. (ii )During survey delivery challans of only five consignments found while BSAL has shown to have taken 80 consignments on lease from Financial Years 1993-94 to 1997-98. No original delivery challans were found and even not produced before learned CIT(A). (iii)Photocopy of some of the delivery challans found did not contain the seals of sales tax check post. (iv)BSAL has not kept separate account of the rolls obtained on lease through such leased rolls were required to be returned to the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 4 days for transporting rolls from Mumbai. (xii)Sri S. Madhava M.D. of BSAL admitted vide letter dated 3-10-2000 that all the lease transactions are only financing transactions. He showed his inability to prove the existence of the supplier of M.S. Rolls. (xiii)The so-called supplier M/s B.H. International, Mumbai and M/s. B.M. Steel Pvt. Ltd., Chennai denied to have supplied any rolls to the assessee. It was confirmed that bills were raised to facilitate financing from credit institution. Sale proceeds received from credit institution were returned to the lessee immediately. (xiv)Department made enquiries from M/s. Lakshmichand Agarwal, G.E. Road, I.T.I., Khurshipar, Bhilai Nagar, Durg, M.P., a manufacturer of rolls, in respect of weight of rolls. It was stated by him that smallest and the lightest rolls weighs 1,800 kgs. Hence around 5 to 6 rolls can be carried in a truck. Weight of rolls carried by each truck is more than 40 tonnes if the transport bills are believed and weight is determined as per the enquiry made from Shri L.C. Agarwal. (xv)There are discrepancies in the copies of transport bills furnished by KMFL vis-a-vis appellant. Serial Numbers are different. Amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d against Shri Madhav, M.D. of BSAL. The learned D.R. has submitted that substantial opportunity has been given to the appellant by the Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A). The learned A.R. drew our attention to the remand report available at pages 186 to 189 of DPB-1 where the learned Assessing Officer has mentioned that the delay in sending the remand report is on account of the fact that efforts were made to locate the parties. It was argued that opportunity was given by learned CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer to substantiate the case and to produce the persons from whom statements have been recorded for cross examination. The learned A.R. drew our attention to invoices available at pages 134 to 138 of DPB-1 and such invoices contain the order number and date. Hence BSAL placed orders to the supplier and such order was given much prior to the date of delivery. The department has not obtained the copy of order. Hence it cannot be said that BSAL has not given specifications of the items required. Hence no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee that normal procedure for procuring the assets by lessee has not been followed. The learned A.R. submitted that case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances and the test of human probabilities show that the transaction of the appellant is bona fide and genuine. The decision in the case of Daulat Ram Rawatmull ( supra) squarely placed the onus on revenue insofar as the apparent and the real is the fact that the appellant had entered into hire purchase transaction and leased the assets had received lease rental, had offered the lease rentals to tax, had identified the assets. The decision in the case of Dhansiram Agarwalla (supra) mentioned that totality of the circumstances and the combined affect is to be considered. When looked from the angle, the transaction between the appellant and BSAL is genuine and no conclusion can be canvassed as nothing to the contrary has been proved or shown. 5. We have heard both the parties. We have also gone through the assessment record and record of learned CIT(A). Survey report dated 30-10-2000 from Addl. DIT (Inv.) Unit II, Bangalore was received in the office of the Assessing Officer on 29-11-2000. Survey report was accompanied along with four Annexures which are hereunder : Annexure A : List of lease transactions of S.G.C. 1 rolls from F.Ys. 1993-94 to 1997-98 containing the name of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sence of A.R. of the assessee; and copy of statement given to A.R. for his comments. The appellant filed reply to show cause dated 8-3-2002 on 14-3-2002. The A.R. of the appellant was given copy of statement of Shri Dinesh and was required to file the comments by 21-3-2002. No comments filed. Assessment order passed on 28-3-2002. 5.1 We have gone through the record of learned CIT(A). Adjournment on 20-12-2002 and 16-1-2003 were sought by the appellant. On 20-1-2003, details were filed and remand report was sought by learned CIT(A). Remand report received on 20-1-2004 and copy of such remand report given to appellant vide fixation notice dated 21-1-2004. Adjournment sought by learned A.R. on 5-2-2004, 13-2-2004 and 27-2-2004. Fresh fixation notice issued on 30-7-2004 for hearing on 19-8-2004. Adjournments sought by A.R. of the appellant on 19-8-2004 & 31-8-2004. Reply was filed by A.R. and letter sent to Assessing Officer for his comments on 23-9-2004. Reply from Assessing Officer received on 21-12-2004 vide letter dated 20-12-2004. Hearings were adjourned on 6-1-2005 and 27-1-2005 at the request of A.R. of the appellant. Hearings were con- ducted on 18-2-2005 and 25-2-2005. Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6-2000. (b)Statement of Shri Himanshu R. Mehta, partner of M/s. B.H. International dated 26-6-2000. (c)Mahazar dated 8-6-2000. (d)Statement of Shri R.K. Jain, G.M. (Steel Melting) of BSAL recorded on 1-6-2000. (e)Stock Inventory dated 1-6-2000 of BSAL. (f)Statement of Shri Ratanri, Senior Manager (Taxation) of BSAL dated 1-6-2000. (g)Statement of Shri Ahmed Khan A. Bugawadi, transporter dated 6-6-2000. (h)Statement of Shri Abdul Khader, Truck driver, dated 7-6-2000. (i)Statement of Shri B. Ramaswamy G.M. (Fin. & Accounts) BSAL dated 13-6-2000. (j)Statement of Shri S. Madhava, MD, BSAL, dated 7-8-2000. The above referred statements have been referred by the investigation wing in the survey report. Copies of such statements were not provided to the assessee at the assessment stage. These were not made part of the remand report sent by Assessing Officer to learned CIT(A). Hence the appellant has not got an opportunity to cross examine such witness. The learned A.R. has pointed out apparent contradictions in the statement. Transport receipts as submitted by Shri Dinesh of KMFL contain the weight and such weight is below 10 tonnes. Moreover rate per kg. as given by Mr. Jain in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a noting on behalf of the lessee that material has been received. It can be safely inferred from the sequence of events that appellant neither verified nor made attempts that copies of documents submitted by lessee were incorrect or false. However, when appellant was confronted with the fact that such assets were not found during the course of survey on the premises of BSAL, the appellant vide letter dated 11-1-2002 submitted as under : "We would like to mention the lease agreement entered into by the assessee is genuine operating lease. The assessee would be in a position to identify its assets leased out at the lessee's place if required we would also like to mention that the number of steel rolling mills leased is about 100 which was in custody of the lessee." However, the Assessing Officer did not make any verification as stock inventory prepared at the time of survey indicated that no identification marks were available on steel rolls. When the appellant is challenging a finding, which has been recorded in his absence at the premises of another assessee then it was obligatory on the part of the Assessing Officer to have given the opportunity to the appellant to prove its con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n claimed in subsequent years also. The department inconsistence with its finding that depreciation is not to be allowed should have allowed the amount paid under hire purchase. In case depreciation is not allowed then lease rental in its entirety are not to be taxed. Lease rental in subsequent years have been offered for tax assessment for assessment year 1997-98 has become final as no reopening is possible at this moment. Moreover it will be relevant to analyse the hire purchase transaction and lease transaction. Hire purchase.-Appellant obtained funds of Rs. 1,40,75,530 from KMFL and gave a deposit of Rs. 45 lakhs. Such deposit was to be adjusted against hire purchase instalments. The appellant paid Rs. 18 lakhs to KMFL towards sales tax and syndication fee. This amount was capitalised as cost of asset. This sum of Rs. 18 lakhs was also included in the amounts to be paid as hire purchase. Total amount payable under hire purchase was Rs. 1,95,87,220. The sum of Rs. 18 lakhs included in this payment was the liability of the appellant towards sales tax and syndication fee. Hence against a sum of Rs. 1,40,75,530 received under hire purchase for acquiring the asset, the appellant wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roperty of the hirer or confer on the hirer an option to purchase the equipment, the transaction should be regarded as one of hire purchase. In such cases the periodical payments made by the hirer should for tax purposes be regarded as made up of : (a )Consideration for hire, to be allowed as deduction in the assessment; and (b)Payment on account of purchase, to be treated as capital outlay, depreciation being allowed to the lessee on the initial value (i.e., the amount for which the hired subject would have been sold for cash at the date of the agreement.) The allowance to be made in respect of hire should be the difference between the aggregate amount of the periodical payments under the initial value (as described above), the amount of this allowance being spread over the terms of agreement. If, however, the agreement were terminated either by outright purchase of the equipment or its return to the owner deduction should cease as from the date of the termination. The assessee claiming this deduction should be asked to furnish a certificate from the vendor or other satisfactory evidence, of the initial value (as described above). Where, no certificate of satisfactory evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... available at the premises of the lessee and depreciation cannot be disallowed on the ground that such assets were not found at the time of survey. The stock inventory was prepared at the back of the assessee and the assessee contended before the Assessing Officer that assets are available. Hence it is held that the depreciation on such leased assets identified at the premises of BSAL will be considered as assets of the appellant for depreciation and on such assets depreciation may not be allowable to BSAL. 6.1 Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 451 (SC) - In this case the Assessing Officer made an assessment in the case of HUF without holding an enquiry into the validity of the claim of Hindu family that a partition has taken place among the members of the family. The following was question of law which was referred to the Andhra Pradesh High Court "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessments made by the ITO on the Hindu Undivided Family of Shri Kapoorchand Shrimal for the years under reference without passing order under section 25A was valid." The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed at page 461 that the question referred by the Tribunal to the Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the affidavit filed by M.R. Pratap in the assessment year 1965-66 which was not considered by the ITO. In the light of above facts, the matter was set aside. The learned High Court remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for consideration of the matter in all aspects strictly in accordance with law and for a decision whether the ITO has committed any error in his best judgment assessment by relying upon the material that were available to him and drawing an inference from such material. This case is of no help to the revenue by implication it means the revenue cannot rely on the evidences placed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the first time. 6.4 Tribhovandas Vithaldas v. CIT [1986] 159 ITR 236 (Guj.) - The assessee claimed that there was a partial partition in the HUF and subsequently to a firm was formed with members of HUF as partners. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of partial partition and gave a finding that funds received from the partial partition were invested in the firm as capital. The assessee contended that amounts received on partition was invested and capital contribution in the firm was made by raising loans from the creditors. The Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the levy of capital gains on the transfer of such shares. In view of the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 509 ; the assessee filed an application and that application was allowed as according to the judgment of the Supreme Court, no capital gain was liable. The revenue filed an application against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal vide which it recalled its earlier order. In the application, the revenue gave the facts which suggested that the shares were transferred to evade tax on the capital gain as the real person receiving the share subsequently was not the firm. Such petition was rejected. The learned High Court held that such rejection was not justified. For coming to such conclusion, the learned High Court relied on the paras quoted in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai (supra) where it was held that no capital gain is taxable on the in case the firm is genuine and the transaction is not a sham or unreal transaction. There should be a genuine intention to contribute to the share capital of the firm. In the light of the observation made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ource of the deposit in the personal assessment was found to be incorrect. Amounts were tendered at Calcutta, the place where the firm was doing business. The deposits were offered as collateral security. The learned High Court held that there is no nexus found between the facts found and the conclusions drawn. The Supreme Court also upheld the finding. The learned Supreme Court observed that there should be some direct nexus between the conclusion of fact arrived at and the primary facts upon which such conclusion taken place. In the instant case the appellant as well as the revenue are arguing that original documents relating to transportation of the assets delivery order etc. were to be available with the lessee i.e., BSAL. The appellant has relied on the copies of the documents provided by the lessee and submitted during the course of proceedings that such assets can be verified. These primary facts are to be considered for arriving at the conclusion. 6.9 Dhansiram Aggarwalla v. CIT [1996] 217 ITR 4 : The learned Gauhati High Court held that if explanation of assessee is accepted in earlier year then same explanation cannot be rejected in subsequent years as a rule of consiste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee for the assessment year 1992-93. This factual position has not been disputed. However, it has been contended that the assessee having not claimed the benefit, it was not entitled to make a grievance on that account. We think that the plea is untenable. If the assessee had claimed the benefit, the revenue would have contended before the Tribunal that the assessee has accepted the addition. Otherwise, the revenue does not give the benefit. So, it wants the best of both the sides. Still further, it appears to us that the revenue is only trying to fiddle with the figures. In fact, the addition to the value of the stock in hand has not resulted in any loss to the revenue. The value which has been shown by the assessee has been carried forward to the next year. Thus, there is no loss of tax so far as the revenue is concerned. . . ." In the instant case the lease rentals as shown by the appellant has been accepted for the taxation, no deduction on account of hire purchase has been allowed in a subsequent year. In case the transaction is to be held as financial transaction then lease rental will not be taxable. No interest component is involved in lease rentals as the amount recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
