9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of loss claimed by the assessee. 2. Non-allowance of depreciation on refrigerator. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Loss Claimed by the Assessee: Facts and Contentions: The main contention in the appeal was against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) confirming the addition of Rs. 54,867. The assessee claimed that transactions for the supply of palm oil were made with certain persons in April 1978. Due to a significant rise in prices, the assessee settled the transactions by paying the difference in cash, which was debited to the profit & loss account and credited to the accounts of the respective persons. The individuals involved were closely related to the partners of the assessee firm. Findings of the Authorities: The Income-tax Officer (ITO) and the AAC did not accept the loss claimed, stating there was no evidence to show that the loss was a genuine business loss. They concluded that the credit entries were an attempt to divert taxable profits to avoid tax. Arguments by the Assessee: The assessee argued that the disallowance was based on conjectures and surmises, emphasizing that business transactions with relatives are not prohibited by law. The representative cited several case laws to support the claim that the burden of proving the apparent was not real lay with the department. Arguments by the Department: The Departmental Representative argued that the loss was fictitious and an attempt to divert income to avoid tax. They highlighted inconsistencies in the statements of the involved parties and the timing of the book entries, suggesting that the transactions were not genuine. Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal noted several undisputed facts: - No original entry record (Sauda Bahi or slip of paper) existed. - Transactions were with close relatives. - Book entries were made several months after the alleged transactions. - Payments were not made in cash during the year. - Some involved parties had no experience in the oil business and did not remember the exact dates of transactions. The Tribunal concluded that the losses claimed were not genuine, as there was no evidence to support the transactions. The destruction of the primary entry paper and the delayed book entries further cast doubt on the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal held that the AAC was justified in disallowing the losses, emphasizing that merely passing book entries was insufficient to prove a transaction. Dissenting Opinion: The Judicial Member disagreed, highlighting factual inaccuracies in the Accountant Member's findings. The Judicial Member argued that the statements of the involved parties and their assessments, which included the profits from these transactions, supported the genuineness of the transactions. The Judicial Member emphasized that the absence of Sauda Bahi was not material if the transaction could be established by other evidence. The Judicial Member concluded that the transactions were genuine and the losses should be allowed. Third Member's Opinion: The Third Member agreed with the Judicial Member, noting that the Nakal Bahi was regularly maintained and the transactions were entered in it. The primary paper was destroyed after entering the transactions in Nakal Bahi, which was consistent with other accepted transactions. The Third Member found no reason to doubt the evidence of the involved parties, who confirmed the transactions and their settlements. The Third Member concluded that the transactions were genuine and the loss claimed was allowable. Final Order: In conformity with the majority opinion, the Tribunal held that the loss of Rs. 54,867 was allowable as a deduction. The Income-tax Officer was directed to allow the deduction. 2. Non-allowance of Depreciation on Refrigerator: Facts and Contentions: The assessee contended that the AAC was not justified in disallowing depreciation on the refrigerator. The issue was covered by the Tribunal's order for the immediately preceding year, where depreciation on the refrigerator was allowed. Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal referred to its previous order dated 28-9-1981 in ITA No. 519/Alld./1981, where depreciation on the refrigerator was allowed. Following the precedent, the Tribunal directed the ITO to allow depreciation on the refrigerator for the current year as well. Final Order: The appeal was allowed in part, directing the ITO to allow both the deduction of Rs. 54,867 and depreciation on the refrigerator.
|
