9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Dispute over the method of accounting for consignment sales. 2. Justifiability of including 50% of consignment sales in the assessment year 1987-88. 3. Assessment of income based on delayed receipt of sale pattials from consignees. Analysis: The judgment pertains to two interlinked income-tax references concerning the assessment year 1987-88. The assessee, a firm dealing in agricultural produces, especially arecanuts, filed its return admitting a total income but faced disagreement with the Assessing Officer regarding the method of accounting for consignment sales. The Assessing Officer proposed an enhancement of consignment sales, leading to a significant addition to the disclosed income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this addition, which was further contested in the Tribunal. The Tribunal, considering the consistent accounting method followed by the assessee, directed that 50% of the sales be considered for the concerned assessment year, thereby correcting the figure for income assessment. Both the Revenue and the assessee challenged this decision, leading to applications under section 256(1) of the Income tax Act, which were rejected. Subsequently, the matter reached the High Court through section 256(2) applications. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal overlooked the concept of income due, emphasizing the delay in receiving sale pattials. Conversely, the assessee's counsel highlighted the adherence to the accounting method and timely reflection of received pattials in the accounts and income returns. The Tribunal's analysis revealed that the assessee followed a mixed system of accounting, not strictly mercantile or cash-based. It considered the factual position, verified the original sale pattials, and noted the dates of receipt. Observing the detailed information in the sale pattials, including expenses, remittances, and transaction specifics, the Tribunal concluded that a reasonable margin of time was necessary for the pattials to reach the assessee. Consequently, it decided to allow a 50% margin for the delayed receipt of sale pattials, attributing the rest to income computation. The High Court declined to answer the questions referred, deeming the conclusions as factual and not raising any legal issues. It emphasized that the Tribunal's decision was based on the peculiar features of the business transactions and the necessity for time in preparing and receiving sale pattials. Thus, the references were disposed of accordingly, maintaining the Tribunal's decision on income assessment for the assessment year in question.
|
