Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1967 (9) TMI 6

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e is a registered firm dealing, inter alia, in gum. In the course of its business it purchased bills of lading and other shipping documents from certain parties in respect of some consignments of gum imported by them from Africa. When the goods arrived in India and were sought to be cleared through customs by the assessee on the basis of the documents purchased by it, it was found that the imports were unauthorised and the goods were liable to be confiscated and a penalty was liable to be imposed under section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. The assessee paid an amount of Rs. 31,302 as and by way of penalty for saving the goods from being confiscated. These penalties were paid by the assessee between the dates October 28, 1944, and January 1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s an additional cost to it for the goods purchased and was, therefore, allowable in the computation of its income. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not accept these contentions urged on behalf of the assessee because, in his opinion, the appellant had failed to prove that the penalty was levied for faults of the five parties from whom it had purchased the goods. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accordingly confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer in respect of the said amount. In the appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however, it took the view that the assessee was entitled to plead that it had purchased the documents of title in good faith and paid consideration thereon and thereafter it had to pay the penalt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Income-tax Act ?" In our opinion, the notice of motion must be rejected. The question as framed by the Tribunal is not on an assumption that the purchase of the consignments by the assessee was in good faith but on the basis of its finding to that effect. As we have already pointed out, the Tribunal observed in its order as follows: " So far as the assessee is concerned, he is entitled to plead that he purchased the documents of title in good faith and paid consideration thereon and thereafter it had to pay the additional penalties in order not to lose the goods which had become its property. In the circumstances of the case, we have to hold that the penalties paid form only part of the cost of the goods imported and accordingly .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed counsel with regard to the finding of the Tribunal cannot be entertained. Since, therefore, there is a finding involved in the decision of the Tribunal that the purchases of the assessee were made in good faith, the question as framed by the Tribunal is the proper and correct question. The notice of motion taken out by the department, therefore, for the purpose of amending the said question or substituting it by a question as proposed by the department, must be rejected. Coming now to the question as framed, we think that it must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Under section 10(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, tax is made payable in respect of the profits or gains of business. Profits or gains of business .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not for the fault of the assessee but he had to bear the same for the purpose of getting his goods released from the customs authorities. In the present case, therefore, the expenses incurred by the assessee could be regarded as wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of his business. In our opinion, therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that the sum of Rs. 31,302 was allowable to the assessee as proper deduction is correct and the deduction is capable of being allowed under section 10(1) of the Income-tax Act as held by the Tribunal or even under section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. The result, therefore, is that the question referred to us must be answered in the affirmative. We answer accordingly. The department will pa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates