9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (2) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the material time, was carrying on business in cloth including export of fine and super-fine cloth. There was import duty leviable on the cotton imported into India which was being used for manufacture of fine and super-fine cloth. As a result of representation made by various traders, the Government of India decided to allow some rebate on customs duty in respect of foreign cotton on which import duty had been paid and which had been used for the manufacture of fine and super-fine cloth. By a circular letter dated 8th March, 1950, the Government of India declared that with a view to encourage export of fine and super-fine cloth of Indian manufacture, it decided to grant from February 1, 1950, a rebate, out of the import duty paid on foreign cotton which had entered into the production of such cloth, at a flat rate of 2 annas per pound on the net weight of all such export to certain specified countries. The said letter further directed that the rebate be paid by the Collector of Central Excise to the exporter. It may also be stated that, since February, 1950, there was no price control on sales by mills to exporters. The Government of India by its letter of 27th February, 1950, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncluded in the total income pertaining to this year." The assessee filed appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner also it had been contended on behalf of the assessee that the said amounts of rebate received by the assessee were its liability to the mills and not its income, and therefore, not liable to tax. In support of its claim, the assessee had placed reliance on Morley v. Tattersal. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also rejected the claim of the assessee and dismissed the appeals. Further appeals were taken to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. On the material placed before it, the Tribunal took the view that the real arrangement between the mills and the assessee was that the amount of rebate or refund belonged to the assessee. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal held that the said amounts were income of the assessee and not its liability, and, therefore, dismissed both the appeals. An application made to it by the assessee under section 66(1) was rejected by the Tribunal, and, as already stated, in compliance of the order made by this court under section 66(2), the Tribunal has stated the case on the aforesai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had no right to claim back the amount of rebate. We are, therefore, unable to raise any inference that in granting rebate there was any intention on the part of the Government that the exporters should hand over the amount to the mills. Now, it is indeed true that the copies of the contracts which have been produced contain either as a term or as a footnote that the assessee would pay the amount of rebate to the mills, in case it is received. It is this endorsement which was the basis of the claim of the assessee, in support of its contention that the amounts of rebate were received by it on behalf of the mills. The other piece of evidence which the assessee had tendered before the income-tax authorities consisted of letters from some of the mills to the assessee in which the mills had claimed from the assessee the payment of the rebate. The third piece of evidence on which the assessee had placed reliance were the certificates which the mills had given to the assessee for obtaining the refund. As against the aforesaid evidence tendered by the assessee, the department had relied on certain circumstances and evidence in the case. Firstly, if was pointed out that in the books of ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee before the Income-tax Officer. The question, therefore, which the Tribunal proceeded to consider was what was the real agreement between the parties, and had come to the conclusion, as stated above, that the real agreement between the parties was that the amount of rebate belonged to the assessee, and the finding, which, in our opinion, is a finding of fact, has not in any manner been vitiated. The material evidence which had been placed before the income-tax authorities and the Tribunal on behalf of the assessee was the agreement and the claims made in two cases by the mills for the return of rebate. That material had been taken into account by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also had taken into account the material which had been placed before it on behalf of the department principally that the amounts of rebate from time to time received by the assessee were not credited in the accounts of the mills, but credited by the assessee in its own account. The books of account of the assessee showed that these amounts belonged to it and not to the mills. There was also another piece of evidence which was tendered on behalf of the department, and that was that the assessee had not paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on which the Tribunal had reached a conclusion. The Tribunal came to the conclusion. There was evidence to support the conclusion reached by it. We are not sitting in appeal over the order of the Tribunal to ascertain whether the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is correct or not. All that we are concerned with is whether there is any evidence in support of that conclusion of the Tribunal, or whether the finding of the Tribunal is, in the circumstances, perverse. In our opinion, as discussed above, there is evidence. We also do not consider that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal is a perverse one in the circumstances of the case. On the finding reached by the Tribunal on this issue of fact, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amounts of rebate was the income of the assessee. The two decisions on which reliance has been placed by Mr. Palkhivala are, in our opinion, distinguishable on facts, and have no application to the facts of this case. Facts in Morley v. Tattersall were: The assessee was a firm of auctioneers. Its profits consisted principally of commission charged by it on auction sales held by it. One of the conditions of sale was that the assessee wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
