1979 (8) TMI 98

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....5 per cent on the gross receipt from contract was excessive. The assessee also sought for permission for filing an additional ground of appeal as under: That the pre-operational expenses of Rs. 12,106 claimed by the assessee should have been allowed as an admissible deduction. It was contended by the ld. counsel for the assessee that while filing the appeal hurriedly this ground of appeal could not be taken in-advertently. He pointed out that as soon as the assessee came to know that this ground of appeal was not originally taken it filed an application dt. 14th May, 1979 requesting the Tribunal to entertain this additional ground of appeal. He submitted that this ground of appeal was not originally taken through sheer mistake and wante....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch had not been considered by the Commissioner. He urged that it was not correct to say that no convincing argument could be placed before the Commissioner. According to him, the expenses claimed by the assessee were fully verifiable and that the accounts were audited. He claimed that the details of these expenses were available but the assessee had not produced them as it was not confronted to furnish the same. He therefore submitted that the assessee's claims for deduction on account of the aforementioned expenses should be fully allowed. The ld. Departmental representative supported the order of the lower authorities. 6. We have heard the submissions of both the parties and gone through the ground of appeal raised before the CIT(A). A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... deduction. The ITO disallowed this claim of the assessee as he was of the opinion that the quarters were constructed in order to get long term benefit like grant of mining lease from the Government in future. According to him, this was a capital expenditure and therefore the assessee claim for deduction was not acceptable. 9. When the matter went up to the CIT(A), it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the amount was paid to Iron Ore Cess Commissioner for the construction of quarters for the mining labourers. It was further contended that the Commissioner contributed 3 times the amount paid by the assessee in construction the quarters which were given to the labourers without rent. It was also urged that the assessee paid the r....