9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13 of 1985 dated March 11, 1986? b. Whether the assessing authority has the right to adopt a different method for the valuation of coffee pooled other than the method that was being adopted by the assessee and accepted without challenge by the Department during the past years? c. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding, inter alia, that the valuation of coffee made by the revision petitioner was incorrect even in the absence of the allegation made by the assessing authority that the revision petitioner has deliberately undervalued the coffee pooled with the Coffee Board? d. Whether the assessing authority can resort to an estimate which ultimately results in feducory income being estimated which, subsequent events dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e year in which it was received and declared before the agricultural income-tax authorities. This system was being followed by the assessee for the last several years. But, for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, the assessing authority took the view that the entire consideration received by the assessee for the crop pooled in each year had to be taken as income of the particular year in which the sale took place. The matter was taken in appeal by the assessee and the appellate authority (appeals) found that as per the consistent method of accounting followed by the assessee, the difference, if any, need be accounted only in the year in which it was received. The order passed by the appellate authority was taken in appeal by the Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the first appellate authority has found that the assessee was following the mercantile method of accounting and it was being consistently followed. Reference was made to an earlier decision of the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the contention taken by the assessee. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner submitted that in view of the fact that the revision petitioner had been following the mercantile system and it was accounting for the additional amount received only during the years in which it was actually received and since the Department had been accepting such returns and passing assessment orders on that basis, there was no justification at this distance of time to take a different view. Reliance was pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
