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

2021 (10) TMI 1059

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uestion of law much less the substantial questions of law to be decided by this Court. On the contrary, the submissions would relate to the factual aspect of the expenses incurred towards the extraction/re-screening charges of iron ore purchased in the assessment year in question. Thus the attempt made by the assessee to establish the lower grade of material purchased by the assessee required more extraction/rescreening charges was not supported by any material evidence. The same being considered extensively by the Tribunal, we do not find any ground to interfere with the factual findings recorded by the Tribunal. Hence, we dismiss the appeal answering the substantial questions of law, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e business of trading in Iron Ore on wholesale basis in the name and style of his proprietary concern. M/s. Vinayaka Minerals . The return of income for the year under consideration was originally filed by the assessee and subsequently it was revised. Since the extraction expenses claimed by the assessee during the year in question was substantially higher than that of the immediately preceding year, the Assessing Officer disallowed the said extraction expenses to certain extent on examining the material on record during the course of assessment proceedings, after recording the statement of the assessee as well. 4. Being aggrieved by the disallowance of extraction/re-screening expenses claimed by the assessee to certain extent and allow .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and accordingly, the same was claimed as expenditures incurred. The authorities have failed to appreciate the same and determined the extraction/rescreening charges, comparing the same with the previous year and subsequent year without any scientific basis. It was further argued that the Assessing Officer has not provided reasonable opportunity for the assessee to cross-examine the persons from whom the assessee had purchased the iron ore, besides collecting the statements of the assessee. Learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee mainly on surmises and conjectures without examining the invoices placed before it in a right perspective. Thus, the learned counsel sought for allowing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al on record. 10. Adverting to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that there is some force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Revenue. No doubt, learned counsel for the appellant-assessee vehemently argued that the authorities have failed to consider the invoices in a proper perspective, we are unable to subscribe to her submissions. It is well settled that the Tribunal being the last fact finding authority, the finding recorded by the Tribunal with respect to the quality of material i.e., iron ore purchased by the assessee has some relevance. The arguments now advanced by the learned counsel for the assessee would not touch upon any question of law much l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... during the year under consideration, we are of the view that even if the various reasons advanced by the assessee in support of its claim for higher extraction/ rescreening charges are assumed to be correct, the same are already covered and taken care of by the fact that the higher extraction/rescreening charges @ ₹ 200 per m.t., are allowed by the AO himself, as compared to ₹ 38 as claimed by the assessee himself in the immediately preceding year. 13. It is relevant to note here that most of the adverse findings recorded by the AO while disallowing the claim of the assessee on account of extraction/ rescreening charges to the extent of about ₹ 45 lakhs were found to be correct by the ld. CIT[A], but she still restric .....

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