9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (8) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reight charged to be paid by the purchasers. It is found as a fact that the purchasers who were the consignees were often charged extra freight where the quantity of coal received by them was less than that on which the freight was charged and paid. The excess freight charged, known in the trade as " undercharges ", used to be collected later from the sellers, the collieries, by the assessee as the agent of the purchasers, independent of any demand from the purchasers and the proceeds were credited in an account known as the "undercharges account". On demand from the purchasers, the assessee used to refund the amounts recovered on the account of the former and in many cases where there was no demand, the amount remained credited in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3, where the same question arose and was answered in favour of the assessee by this court in the case of the same assessee in CIT v. Karam Chand Thapar Bros. (Coal Sales) Ltd [1979] 117 ITR 621, yet in the assessment year 1955-56, the same question was answered by this court against the assessee and the decision is Karam Chand Thapar Bros. (Coal Sales) Ltd. v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 939. He submitted that the matter should be sent back to the Tribunal for ascertainment of relevant facts. It was submitted further that in the assessment years involved in this reference, the assessee had also made claims for bad debts arising out of supply of coal. This was a new fact which was not raised nor considered in CIT v. Karam Chand Thapar Bros. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifference between the facts of this case and the facts in the earlier assessment years where this court has held in favour of the assessee. We see no reason to differ from the earlier decisions. The views of the other High Courts on similar questions are not binding on us. The contention of the Revenue that the amounts in dispute were taxable under section 28(iv), in our view, is of little substance. It has been consistently held that the amounts involved reached the hands of the assessee not as a benefit or perquisite of business but on account of the consumers to whom the amounts really belonged and that the assessee was accountable for the same. For the reasons above, we answer the question referred in the affirmative and in favour o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
