Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.20 seconds)Income-Tax Officer vs Vaibhav Textiles on 26 August, 2002
14. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue involves three questions. Whether, the counter sales to the foreign tourists against foreign currency should be treated as part of export turnover ? Whether, the CIT(A) is empowered to admit the additional claim ? and whether, the assessed income after the order of the CIT(A) can be less than the returned income ? The first issue is covered by the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of ITO v. Vaibhav Textiles (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held that the sales to the foreign tourists against foreign currency should be treated as export sales and deduction under s, 80HHC should be allowed. We follow the decision of the jurisdictional High Court and hold that the counter sales to the foreign tourist against foreign currency should be treated as part of export sales and there is no infirmity in the decision of the CIT(A), wherein the CIT(A) has directed to treat the SFT sales as part of export turnover. Now, the second question though academic in nature involves whether, the CIT(A) is empowered to admit the additional claim or not ? The additional claim is in respect of treating the counter sale to the foreign tourists as export turnover. The issue involves a pure question of law and the assessee can raise a question of law at any stage of appeal.
G.C. Agarwal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Assam, ... on 7 September, 1990
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi vs Stepwell Industries Ltd on 27 August, 1997
Additional Commissioner Of Income ... vs M/S. Gurjargravures Private Limited on 8 November, 1977
(b) Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures (P) Ltd. .
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bhopal vs M/S. Shelly Products And Another on 8 May, 2003
Puranmal Radhakishan And Company vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay on 4 September, 1956
So, no commission has been paid by the assessee to anyone. The bargaining price shown by the assessee is not on higher side. The CIT(A) has wrongly restricted the addition to Rs. 1,50,000 to cover possible leakage of revenue and discrepancies. He further submitted that the principle of taxing the excess stock under Section 69 has been upheld by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Radhakishan Ramnimnjan v. CIT . He further submitted that the assessee has admitted the excess stock and he cannot go back on admission. The admission was made voluntarily and there was no coercion or pressure. For this purpose, he relied on the following decisions :
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P vs Kanpur Coal Syndicate on 30 April, 1964
(c) CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate
The learned Authorised Representative further submitted with equal vehemence that the IT Authorities are quasi-judicial authorities and drew our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd. where it has been observed that the taxing authorities exercise quasi-judicial powers and in doing so they must act in a fair and non-partisan manner. Although, it is part of their duty to ensure that not tax which is legitimately due from an assessee should remain unrecovered but they must also at the same time should not act in a manner which might indicate that scales are weighted against the assessee.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Simon Carves Limited on 17 August, 1976
(c) CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate
The learned Authorised Representative further submitted with equal vehemence that the IT Authorities are quasi-judicial authorities and drew our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd. where it has been observed that the taxing authorities exercise quasi-judicial powers and in doing so they must act in a fair and non-partisan manner. Although, it is part of their duty to ensure that not tax which is legitimately due from an assessee should remain unrecovered but they must also at the same time should not act in a manner which might indicate that scales are weighted against the assessee.
National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 December, 1996
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (supra) has held that where a question of law arose (although not raised before the authorities below) having a bearing on the assessee's tax liability, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to examine the same. The Department cannot take the benefit of ignorance of the assessee as per Circular No. 14 (XL-35)/1955 dt. 11th April, 1955', issued by the CBDT. Therefore, if the assessee is legally entitled for a rebate or relief, it cannot be deprived from the benefit solely on the ground that it was not claimed before the AO. Therefore, we hold that the CIT(A) has committed no error in admitting the additional claim of the assessee in respect of treating the counter sale to the foreign tourists as export turnover. Now, the third question involves the issue whether, the assessed income after the order of the CIT(A) can be less than the returned income or not ? This issue is neither emerging from the order of the CIT(A) nor from the ground of appeal of the Department. However on merits, it may be mentioned that it, is well settled principles of law that a person cannot be charged even a paisa more than what is due. The procedural provisions of Section 143(2) are applicable for AO and not on appellate authorities. The powers of CIT(A) are contained under Section 251 of the IT Act, 1961. Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 251 empowers the CIT(A) to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. The CIT(A) has power to reduce the assessed income and this power of reduction is not restricted to the returned income. The plea of the learned Departmental Representative that the assessment order is not appealable as it does not fall in any of the conditions prescribed under Section 246(1)(a), is also not acceptable. The AO has made the additions and recalculated the 80HHC deduction at lower figure, therefore, the assessee is aggrieved from the order of the AO and it can file an appeal before the CIT(A). The case laws relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative are distinguishable on the facts and not applicable to the case before us. In the case law (supra), the claim under s, 35B was made for the first time before the Tribunal, It was held that since the claim was not made before the ITO or the AAC, the Tribunal was wrong in allowing the claim of the assessee. In the case law (supra), the claim under Section 84 was made without having any material and on mere act that such claim was allowed in subsequent years, In the case of the present assessee, the direction of CIT(A) to treat the SFT sales as part of export turnover is based on the decision of jurisdictional Tribunal. From the letter of AO dt. 29th Sept., 2000 (APB 30) it appears that the quantum of deduction under Section 80HHC on SFT sales was determined after verification of SFT sales by the AO. Hence, ground No. 3 of the Departmental' appeal is dismissed. The ground Nos. 2 and 3 of the assessee's appeal have also become infructuous and, therefore, dismissed.