9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y a commission agent selling deshi ghee of various brands on arhat/commission basis. During the year under consideration, the assessee made sales of deshi ghee on arhat/commission to the tune of Rs. 191.61 lakhs. The assessee also made sales on the assessee's own account during the year to the tune of Rs. 110.97 lakhs. The assessee showed commission receipts of Rs. 4,22,391 as against Rs. 2,45,000 for the immediately preceding year. According to the assessee, immediately on effecting sale of consignor, the assessee sends sale list containing various details like date of sale, name of articles, number of tins, net weight, amount of sale consideration, details of expenses, etc., to the consignor/principal. The assessee deducts its commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of this court. The said application was rejected on the ground that the findings arrived at are findings of fact and no referable question of law arises. It is contended by Mr. Rajendra Mehta, learned counsel for the assessee-applicant, that Parasmal Kanaji is a reputed businessman dealing as speculator in shares, foodgrains, oils, deshi ghee, gwar, etc. The said concern purchased deshi ghee from Sancheti Trading Co. and Abhay Sales Agencies and subsequently sold deshi ghee to the assessee. The said concern Parasmal Kanaji is absolutely unrelated to the assessee. All the transactions of the said concern were also duly recorded and profit earned duly disclosed and assessed after scrutiny and verification. In view of this, the income earn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herwise was liable to be paid by of the contentions of the appellant is that these different concerns, namely, agencies were independent concerns, going concern namely Shri Parasmal Kanaji was also an independent entity having no connection whatsoever with the appellant, the contentions so raised can hardly survive if one tries to go behind the veil of the modus operandi so adopted by the appellant which otherwise will clearly indicate that the appellants main purchase as objection was to divert the profit with ulterior motive as referred to in the impugned assessment order. It may be that the sister concerns were brought into existence by execution of the partnership deal or by way of proprietorship concern and were also given a different ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny of the concerns so as to have really changed hands from the appellant to the sister concerns or from the sister concerns to Sh. Parasmal Kanaji certain transactions dated May 21, 1984, May 26, 1984, and May 28, 1984, from the appellant to Sancheti Trading Co. from Sancheti Trading Co. to Parasmal Kanaji and from Parasmal Kanaii to the appellant respectively. It is seen that no details whatsoever in regard to the expenses by way of transportation or by way of mazdoori are available and this would bear an ample testimony to the fact that the goods have not really been transported by way of delivery or taking possession of and this would indicate in clear terms that the sister concerns were brought in only with a view to give the transactio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
