1983 (1) TMI 101 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance addition made by IT Authorities.
2. Disallowance of Rs. 18,029.
3. Addition of Rs. 1,61,020 and Rs. 8,50,837 for sale of import quota of cotton and incentive under Export Promotion Scheme.
4. Claim for deduction of Rs. 14,698 as additional sales-tax liability.
5. Claim for weighted deduction u/s 35B(i)(b)(iii) for expenditure on carriage of goods for export and insurance.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance addition made by IT Authorities
The assessee contested certain disallowance addition made by the IT Authorities. The appeal pertained to the assessment year 1973-74, and the relevant previous year was the calendar year 1972.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Rs. 18,029
The disallowance of Rs. 18,029 was not pressed by the assessee's counsel during the hearing and was rejected.

Issue 3: Addition of Rs. 1,61,020 and Rs. 8,50,837
The next point involved the addition of Rs. 1,61,020 and Rs. 8,50,837 for the sale of import quota of cotton and incentive under the Export Promotion Scheme. The assessee did not dispute this addition based on the decision of the Allahabad High Court, and the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT (Appeals) on this point.

Issue 4: Claim for deduction of Rs. 14,698
The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 14,698 as additional sales-tax liability. However, the CIT(Appeals) did not entertain this claim as it was not raised before the ITO. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the assessee failed to provide necessary material to support the deduction during assessment proceedings.

Issue 5: Claim for weighted deduction u/s 35B(i)(b)(iii)
The last point involved the assessee's claim for weighted deduction under section 35B(i)(b)(iii) for expenditure on the carriage of goods for export and insurance. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals) on this point, as the assessee did not challenge it based on a Special Bench decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal after considering all the issues raised by the assessee and upholding the decisions of the lower authorities based on relevant legal precedents and lack of substantiating evidence from the assessee.