9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether there was any material to justify an addition based on incorrect consumption of chlorate in the manufacture of matches? 2. Whether there were materials to justify the rejection of book results and invoke the proviso to section 13 of the Income-tax Act? Analysis: The case involved assessments for the years 1947-48 and 1949-50, where the Income-tax Officer added sums to the income of the assessee due to alleged excessive consumption of chlorate in match manufacturing. The Appellate Tribunal upheld these additions, leading to the reference of two questions to the High Court for decision. For the assessment year 1947-48, proceedings were initiated under section 34 due to suspicions of chlorate diversion. The Income-tax Officer added &8377; 12,000 to the income. Similarly, for 1949-50, &8377; 15,000 was added. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner reduced the additions, but the Tribunal directed re-computation based on an estimated consumption of 17 pounds per 100 gross of matches. The High Court analyzed the discrepancies in chlorate consumption figures for different years and the absence of a daily mixture account. The court highlighted the challenges in fixing a standard for chlorate consumption due to variations in manufacturing processes. It noted that the absence of a daily mixture account did not render the entire book results unreliable. The court emphasized the importance of considering the unique features of manual match manufacturing, as evidenced by chemical analysis results and the varying sizes of matchsticks and heads produced by the assessee. It critiqued the Tribunal's reliance on consumption rates from subsequent years without considering the differences in production variety and quantity. Furthermore, the court acknowledged that the stock and consumption of chlorate were periodically checked by other departments, indicating accountability in production. Ultimately, the court concluded that the assessee's accounts were capable of reflecting true income and profits, rejecting the invocation of the proviso to section 13 of the Act. Both questions were answered in favor of the assessee, who was awarded costs and counsel's fee. The reference was answered accordingly, providing clarity on the issues raised in the assessment.
|
