9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (4) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orporation) entered into a contract with the State Trading Corporation of India (Trading Corporation) for the sale of tractors imported by the Trading Corporation. The Agro Corporation, under the terms of the contract, were not to charge from the customers/ purchasers of the tractors price more than the ceiling price as approved by the Trading Corporation. During the accounting year ending March 31, 1972, relevant for the assessment year 1972-73, the Agro Corporation sold p a number of tractors imported through the Trading Corporation. The sale price realised by the Agro Corporation from the sale of such tractors exceeded the total amount which it was entitled to realise from the customers in accordance with the ceiling fixed by the Trading ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms of Rs. 12,80,428 and Rs. 2,23,480 were not rightly included as income of the assessee during the year and, therefore they are deleted." The Tribunal concluded that the excess amount charged by the assessee was not its trading receipt. It is on these facts that the reference under section 256(2) came to be made before the High Court for its opinion. The High Court reversed the findings of the Tribunal and came to the conclusion that the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had rightly disallowed the exemption. This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court is by the Agro Corporation. Mr. O. P. Rana, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has taken us through the judgment of the Tribunal and also of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... poration had called upon the Agro Corporation to refund the excess amount, the purchasers could enforce the direction contained in the letter and claim refund of the excess price paid by them. If, to begin with, there was no legal enforceable liability to refund the amount, the same certainly was not created by the letter dated August 5, 1971. No other material was brought to our notice whereunder such a liability to refund the amount had been created in the year in question. The High Court, thus, came to the conclusion that the excess amount charged by the Agro Corporation was part of the sale price of the tractors sold by it and it was under no legal or constitutional obligation to refund the same to the customers. We see no infirmity i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
