TMI Blog1991 (5) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d a number of items, but on appeal the Commissioner of Income-tax reversed the decision. The decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax was maintained by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The application for making a reference was dismissed by the Tribunal and hence this application. The dispute relates to deduction of the amount of gratuity. According to the actuarial certificate, the liability of the assessee for gratuity for the year 1976-77 was Rs. 4,77,446. The assessee further claimed a sum of Rs. 3,06,175 on account of payment of gratuity to the employees who retired during the year under reference. This excess amount was disallowed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner as it did not fulfil the conditions prescribed by section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fall in the gross profit rate to which a reply was given that it was due to increase in expenditure on salaries and wages, fuel consumption and stores consumption. The assessee was directed to furnish the details of the percentage of consumption of the different items but, in spite of repeated reminders, he failed to furnish the same. It was held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner that the assessee-company had failed to discharge the onus of proof regarding the fall in the gross profit rate to the extent of 6.4% and the conclusion was that the expenses under various heads had been inflated. On appeal, the learned Commissioner took into consideration the change in the gross profit rate for 11 years and various other factors including ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record its conclusion on every disputed question raised before it, setting out its reasons in support of its conclusion. But, in failing to record reasons, when the Appellate Tribunal fully agrees with the view expressed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and has no other ground to record in support of its conclusion, it does not act illegally or irregularly, merely because it does not repeat the grounds of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the assessee that, specifically, the question about the fall in gross profit rate was not raised before the Tribunal when the application for reference was made. When the application under section 256(1) was filed, this court should not entert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
