9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rocured import licences upto 1970-71 but thereafter no licences had been procured by them - Their firm had not purchased any import licence after 1970-71 up till 1982-83, but some persons had approached him for signatures, as actual user for importing goods under the licences, and he had received, commission @ 2% in cash on the goods imported, but he had never used the said goods and did not even know what goods were imported. The Assessing Officer was rather liberal in accepting the case of the appellant-assessee in respect of the invoice dated 3rd July, 1981 and this cannot be a ground or justification for not making any addition in respect of the invoice dated 3rd June, 1981. – thus, the order of the Tribunal is upheld – Decided against Assessee. - ITA No. 56/2002 - - - Dated:- 13-8-2014 - Sanjiv Khanna And V. Kameswar Rao,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Simran Mehta For the Respondent : Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel JUDGMENT Sanjiv Khanna, J. (Oral) This appeal by the assessee-Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. relates to assessment year 1982-83 and was admitted to hearing vide order dated 15th July, 2002, on the following substantial question of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned counsel for the appellant-assessee has submitted that the findings recorded by the authorities and the Tribunal are perverse and contrary to the material on record. He has highlighted that the Assessing Officer himself had accepted genuineness of all the invoices under the same import licence. Our attention was drawn to the documents placed on record, which include a letter dated 19th February, 1981, written by the appellant-assessee to UET and states that the appellant assessee would issue a letter of authority in favour of UET and all costs, charges and expenses, including charges for opening of the letter of credit and all other bank charges, would be borne and paid by UET; a letter dated 19th February, 1981 written by UET by which they had made part payment to the appellant-assessee and required them to issue a letter of authority in favour of M/s. H.M. Doyal Co; another letter dated 20th February, 1981 was written by UET stating that they were making payment of ₹ 15,000/- and a letter of authority be issued in favour of M/s. H.M. Doyal Co.; and a copy of letter of authority dated 25th March, 1981. Our attention was drawn to the invoice dated 3rd June, 1981 for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the assessment year 1985-86, statement on oath was made by Joginder Singh that UET had not affected any import under the aforementioned import licence. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) went into details, as before him the assessee had relied upon the letter of credit as well as the statement of accounts, which was obtained by the Assessing Officer from M/s. H.M. Doyal Co. in support of his contention that the transaction covered by invoice dated 3rd June, 1986 was also genuine and no addition was justified. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noticed that the statement of accounts furnished by M/s. H.M. Doyal Co. started from 10th September, 1981 and the transaction in question or the invoice in question was dated 3rd June, 1981. Bill of lading was dated 3rd June, 1981 and the letter of credit, which was opened with United Bank of India was also dated 3rd June, 1981. The statement of accounts, furnished by M/s. H.M. Doyal Co. did not show any opening balance as on 10th September, 1981. Thus the statement of account furnished by M/s H.M Doyal Co. would not help decide the issue in favour of the appellant-assessee or exonerate them. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y such contention was raised. Appellant-assessee has filed grounds of appeal raised before the Tribunal, but we find that no such assertion or contention was raised therein. In fact, it was pleaded that the statement and affidavit of Joginder Singh should not be accepted because there were documents supporting import of goods against the invoice dated 3rd July, 1981 and payments made to M/s. H.M. Doyal Co. by UET, by way of demand drafts, were duly recorded in the books of accounts of M/s. H.M. Doyal Co. for the period between 10th September, 1981 onwards. Further, in respect of the invoice dated 3rd July, 1981, M/s. Asia Transport Company had duly confirmed the import of goods. 9. As noticed above, in respect of the consignment covered by the second invoice dated 3rd July, 1981, no addition has been made by the Assessing Officer primarily for the reason that M/s. Asia Transport Company had confirmed having sent the lorry receipt for transportation of goods along with their bill to UET. In these circumstances, the appellant-assessee was given benefit and no addition was made in respect of this invoice. However, in regard the invoice dated 3rd June, 1981, there was no evidenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he demand draft of ₹ 15,000/- to Dalmia International. He further denied having dealings with M/s H.M. Doyal Co. during 1981-82. 10. The main focus and contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-assessee is that once invoice dated 3rd July, 1981 was accepted and no addition was made, then no addition was justified in respect of the invoice dated 3rd June, 1981. We have considered the said contention and examined the facts and material, but do not find any merit in the same. In fact, we feel that the Assessing Officer was rather liberal in accepting the case of the appellant-assessee in respect of the invoice dated 3rd July, 1981 and this cannot be a ground or justification for not making any addition in respect of the invoice dated 3rd June, 1981. The conduct of M/s. H.M. Doyal Co. relied upon by the counsel for appellant assessee does not inspire confidence or absolve them. In fact, statement of G. Kapoor goes against the appellant-assessee. We do not, in these circumstances, think that the order of the Tribunal requires interference on the ground that there was no evidence or material, or that the order is perverse. 11. The question of law is accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
