TMI Blog1966 (1) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... total income ? " The assessee is a limited company acting as selling agent of various companies and also carrying on business in shares, jute and speculation. The question referred to relates to the assessment year 1952-53. During the accounting year ending on 31st of August, 1951, the assessee-company transacted business in jute which resulted in a profit of Rs. 59,91,721. The assessee claimed that out of the profit a sum of Rs. 14,30,561 was in respect of various transactions of purchase and sale of jute on account of Dalmia Cement Paper Marketing Co. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as " D.C.P.M. Ltd.". The Income-tax Officer negatived the aforesaid claim of the assessee on several grounds. The assessee went in appeal before the Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P.M. Ltd. for the assessment year 1952-53, as well as the profit, and loss account of that company, were produced before the Tribunal. It was the definite case of the assessee that D.C.P.M. Ltd. had already been assessed for the disputed sum of Rs. 14,30,561. It does not appear from the order of the Tribunal that the same was not accepted. The assessee also filed a copy of the credit advice dated the 31st August, 1951, sent by D.C.P.M. Ltd., crediting the assessee-company with Rs. 70,27,578 as representing the cost of 94,775 maunds and 391/4 seers of jute purchased on account of that company and adjusted as advised and bills, etc., received. The Tribunal has not doubted the genuineness of that document but has not relied on the same because ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mments made and the explanation given by learned counsel appearing for the assessee in respect of the four grounds given by the Tribunal for rejecting the claim of the assessee. As regards the first ground it was admitted that the Tribunal has not taken judicial notice of the fact that it is the usual practice in transactions of this nature to enter into agreement for purchase orally and the absence of documentary evidence to show that the assessee was required to undertake transactions on behalf of D.C.P.M. Ltd. should not have been made a ground for disallowing the claim of the assessee. The above contention has some force and it cannot be brushed aside. Regarding the second ground, it was contended that, as it was the prevailing custom o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground, namely, the absence of entries of brokerage, commission, etc., in the books of the assessee for the service rendered as the agent of D.C.P.M. Ltd., it was submitted that as brokerage, etc., were directly paid to the assessee by Albion Jute Company and New Central Jute Company to whom the jute was ultimately sold, the assessee did not charge any brokerage or commission directly from D.C.P.M. Ltd. This was also not a new explanation of the assessee. The Tribunal has, however, not expressed any view on the same and it was, therefore, rightly contended on behalf of the assessee that the ground given by the Tribunal is not cogent. As we are concerned only with the ground given by the Tribunal for rejecting the claim of the assessee, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
