TMI Blog1985 (11) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Rs. 28,13,801.41 which was rejected and the District Excise and Taxation Officer, by his order dated July 2, 1969, assessed the purchase tax payable at Rs. 84,765.44. On appeal, the realisation of the tax was stayed oil the assessee's depositing Rs. 10,000, vide order dated September 9, 1969. When they were served with a notice for payment of the remaining amount of Rs. 74,765.44, they filed a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the assessment order, but the same was dismissed on January 19, 1970. The letters patent appeal filed by them was dismissed on October 28, 1970, and the special leave petition in the Supreme Court on March 25, 1971. The amount of Rs. 10,000 referred to above was deposited on Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rving in the latter part of its order that the assessee was following a mixed system depending on the exigencies of the situation. According to learned counsel, the assessee is not entitled unilaterally to change the system of accounting usually followed by him. Reliance, for this contention, was placed on decision of the Allahabad High Court in Shiv Prasad Ram Sahai v. CIT [1966] 61 ITR 124, wherein it was observed that if the assessee has once chosen the mercantile system for a transaction and has regularly employed that system, it is not open to him unilaterally at any time during subsequent accounting year to change that system. With due respect to the learned judges, we are unable to subscribe to this view. All that section 145 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ispute that he was employing the mercantile system of accounting, there was no material on record for the Tribunal to hold that the assessee was following a mixed system depending on the exigencies of the situation. We are afraid it is not open to learned counsel for the Revenue to go behind the statement of the case when neither the finding of the Tribunal as to the system of accounting followed by the assessee has been challenged nor any question in this regard has been referred. The decisions relied upon by him, such as Reform Flour Mills P. Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 132 ITR 184 (Cal) and CIT v. United India Woollen Mills [1981] 132 ITR 457 (P H) are also of no help to him because all those decisions proceed on the basis that the assessee was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id stage, the assessee did not think it necessary to debit the amount in the balance-sheet of the accounting year 1969-70. The fact that the assessee did not think it necessary in the accounting year in which it was paid to debit the amount, does not clothe him with any right under the law to debit that amount in any subsequent year. As noticed above, even in Salig Ram Kanhaya Lal's case [1982] 133 ITR 915 (P H), the amount was said to have accrued to the assessee in the year in which it was received and not in any subsequent year. That decision, therefore, has no bearing on the facts and circumstances of the present case. Learned counsel for the assessee could not cite any other case in which the assessee may have been allowed to claim t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
