9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of income tax law regarding expenditure on coal account. Analysis: The High Court of Orissa was presented with a case involving the disallowance of expenditure on the coal account by the Appellate Tribunal. The primary question for consideration was whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 30,000 on the coal account without rejecting the accounts. The assessment year in question was 1968-69, and the assessee, a company engaged in manufacturing ceramic articles, claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,05,429 for coal consumption expenses in the manufacturing process, resulting in a net loss of Rs. 83,935 in the profit and loss account. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner both disallowed a portion of the claimed expenses based on past records, with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner referring to investigations conducted for assessment years 1962-63 to 1966-67. The Tribunal considered the past acceptance of consumption ratios by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for previous years, ranging from 57.8% to 67.7%, and ultimately upheld the addition of Rs. 30,000 for the current assessment year. The assessee argued that the Tribunal should have considered the past consumption ratios and not limited the disallowance to Rs. 30,000, especially when the percentage admitted in the current year was lower than previous years. The High Court agreed with the assessee, emphasizing that the matter at hand was factual, and the Tribunal should have adopted an average ratio between 60% and 65% based on past records and industry standards. The Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 30,000 on the coal expenses and directed the Tribunal to quantify the amount based on the average ratio determined. In conclusion, the High Court ruled that the Appellate Tribunal was not justified in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 30,000 on the coal expenses for the assessment year 1968-69. The Court made no order as to costs, and the judgment was agreed upon by both judges, N. K. Das and R. N. Misra.
|
