Commission agency claim in tax assessment failed where the assessee could not prove it with cogent evidence or new documents.

An assessee claiming that disputed molasses sales were effected only as a commission agent must prove the commission agency arrangement with cogent evidence before the fact-finding authority. Here, the assessee admitted participation in the transactions but failed to produce reliable certificates, statements, or other material linking the buyer and seller, while its books recorded the sales without any indication of commission dealings. The revisional court also declined to rely on photocopies filed for the first time in revision, as they had not been properly brought on record as additional evidence before the Tribunal. The tax liability sustained by the lower authorities was therefore maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee had established that the disputed molasses sales were made only as a commission agent and not on its own account, and whether the revision could succeed on the basis of documents not proved before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The assessee admitted its involvement in the transactions but failed to produce credible evidence to prove an existing commission agency arrangement or to link the seller and purchaser through reliable certificates, statements, or other material. The revenue relied on the assessee's books of account, which recorded the transactions without any indication of commission sales, and the assessee did not discharge the burden of rebutting that material. The photocopies filed in revision could not be examined as additional evidence because no application had been made before the Tribunal to admit them, and there was no basis to remand the matter at such a late stage.

Conclusion: The claim of commission agency was not proved, and the tax liability sustained by the authorities below was upheld against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A party asserting commission agency in a tax assessment must prove it by cogent evidence before the fact-finding authority, and documents not duly brought on record as additional evidence cannot be relied upon at the revisional stage to disturb concurrent findings.

---