9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (11) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g yarn. The assessee supplied yarn to a Bombay party by name Messrs. Sukh Dayal Ram Bilas. The yarn sold was worth Rs. 2,28,325. In the beginning of 1948, the Government imposed additional excise duty on yarn. The assessee apprehended that it might be required to pay additional excise duty on the yarn supplied to the Bombay party. On February 8, 1948, the assessee called upon the Bombay party to pay a sum of Rs. 74,361 towards additional levy that might be required to be paid to the Government. It was made clear in that letter that in case the amount was not paid to the Government, the amount would be refunded to the Bombay party. The Bombay party paid the assessee the sum of Rs. 74,361 in March, 1948. The assessee, however, persuaded the G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eived from the Bombay party was at all a trading receipt. The second issue was whether the amount was liable to tax in the year in which it was received or in the year in which it was credited in the capital reserve account. On the first issue the Tribunal's finding was that the amount received from the Bombay party did not constitute trading receipt of the assessee. On the second issue the Tribunal held that, even on the assumption that it was a trading receipt, it was not income for the assessment year 1951-52. Dr. Misra, appearing for the Commissioner, challenged the Tribunal's finding on the first issue. Dr. Misra urged before us that the receipt of Rs. 67,125 by the assessee in March, 1948, must be regarded as a trading receipt. Refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal reserve account of the assessee. There was some discussion before us as to whether the adjustment was made with or without the consent of the Bombay party. The assessee contended that the Bombay party was agreeable to such adjustment. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not prepared to accept that position. The Tribunal has not gone into the question of the alleged consent of the Bombay party. We do not think that the alleged consent of the Bombay party would make much difference as regards the question whether there was any income of the assessee in the calendar year 1950. We have seen that the amount in question was received by the assessee as far back as March, 1948. There was no further receipt during the calendar year 1950. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
