2001 (5) TMI 30

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng question has been referred for the opinion of this court: "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs.14,000 being the fine paid by the assessee in lieu of confiscation of the goods, could not be taken into account as part of the actual cost of the goods and consequently was not deductible in the computation of the business pr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The said authority sustained the loss to the extent of Rs.14,000 on a different ground, viz., that the said amount represented penalty imposed on the assessee for violation of the customs laws in 1973 when these were purchased and the said amount of Rs.14,000 could not be regarded as the cost of cadmium plates. The assessee challenged the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Customs Act, 1962, was leviable and in fact levied. In a case where the penalty has to be incurred because of the failure of the assessee himself, the penalty paid by the assessee could not be regarded as wholly laid out for the purpose of business. That being the position the decision of the Tribunal is in order. The question referred is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X