Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.23 seconds)Section 13 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
R.B. Jessaram Fetehchand (Sugar Dept.) vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 30 March, 1969
This case has been apparently accepted by the Appellate Tribunal and the subordinate authorities. There is no case that the assessee has for the purpose of sale repacked the bags and increased their number by reducing their contents. In a wholesale business like that of the assessee, who buys and sells in terms of the number of bags, maintenance of a stock register in terms of weight is a very laborious process. As observed in the Bombay High Court in R. B. Jessaram Fatehchand v. Commissioner of Income-tax, there is no need to have complete particulars of the names and addresses of customers in the case of cash transactions, and the absence of such particulars in the sale bills would not be a ground for not accepting the books of account of an assessee. As already stated, the assessee has admittedly maintained his accounts according to the method regularly employed by him, and the profits and gains of the business can be properly computed from his accounts. The only question is whether the accounts are correct and complete. There is no finding that the purchases have been exaggerated or the sales have been suppressed, or that any transaction has not come into the accounts. In these circumstances, the grounds stated by the Appellate Tribunal are neither valid nor relevant in rejecting the accounts of the assessee. Question No. 1 in the reference is, therefore, answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee.
S. Veeraiah Reddiar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala. on 5 April, 1961
Reliance was also placed on the following passage appearing in another decision of this court in Veeriah Reddiar v. Commissioner of Income tax, [1960] 38 I.T.R. 152, 170 (Ker.).:
S. N. Namasivayam Chettiar vs The Commissioner Of ... on 3 February, 1960
16. As against the above authorities, counsel for the revenue first cited the decision of the Supreme Court in S. N. Namasivayam Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1960] 38 I.T.R. 579, 588 ; [1960] 2 S.C.R. 805 (S.C.).. Counsel relies on the following passage in the above decision:
Pandit Bros. vs Commr. Of Income-Tax on 24 March, 1954
17. Reference has been made in the above case to the decision of the Punjab High Court in Pandit Bros v. Commissioner of Income-tax and after quoting from the said decision a part of the passage which has been herein quoted already, the Supreme Court said :
Chhabildas Tribhuvandas Shah And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 21 September, 1964
19. Counsel for the revenue next cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Chhabildas Tribhuvandas Shah v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1966] 59 I.T.R. 733 (S.C.). In that case, the Supreme Court held that the absence of a tally of quantities at least in respect of the major items of the trading account, and want of satisfactory explanation for the fall in the margin of profits, particularly in the light of the fact that the assessee had a large amount of import quota which would have given him a handsome margin of profit was sufficient ground for the Income-tax Officer not to accept the assessee's accounts and compute the profits and gains of the business to the best of judgment. This decision also shows that absence of a stock register is not by itself a sufficient ground for not accepting the book profits of an assessee; but it is only a corroborative circumstance in the light of other facts which establish that the profits disclosed by his books of account cannot be accepted as true.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs K.Y. Pilliah And Sons on 13 October, 1966
20. Another decision of the Supreme Court cited by counsel for the revenue is Commissioner of Income-tax v. K. Y. Pilliah & Sons, [1967] 63 I.T.R. 411 (S.C.). That was a case where it was found that the assessee carried on large scale business in the names of third parties, without bringing those transactions into his accounts. His accounts also contained bogus credit entries. The profits disclosed were abnormally low, and there was no explanation for the same. The accounts were rejected by the Appellate Tribunal on the above grounds. The Supreme Court held that there were sufficient materials to reject the assessee's accounts and assess his income to the best of judgment, and that no question of law arose out of the order of the Tribunal.
Messrs. Howrah Trading Co., Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 26 March, 1959
21. Counsel for the revenue also relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Howrah Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1968] 67 I.T.R. 582, 583 (Cal.). The assessee in that case was a manufacturer of iron pipes, drain pipes, etc. He maintained a stock register of the raw materials purchased by weight, and of the articles manufactured in length. The Income-tax Officer held that the profits of the assessee could not be properly determined from the method of accounting adopted by the assessee, as the finished goods were not accounted in weight. The High Court upheld the rejection of the accounts, stating: