1976 (8) TMI 61

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....propose to dispose of both the appeals and the Cross Objection by this consolidated order as common points are involved. 2. There is a delay of 21 days in filing the Cross Objections and the Income-tax Officer has submitted a petition stating that the delay was on account of some misunderstanding in respect of the jurisdiction of the concerned income tax officer. After perusing the petition fil....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is register the Appellate Assistant Commissioner noticed that the total wastage came to Rs. 35,000. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it was explained that the wastage recorded in the E.B. 3 Register should be accepted as genuine and in support of this, the decision of the Tribunal for the earlier year was cited wherein it was held that the E.B. 3 Register was subjected to scrutiny by t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0 as against Rs. 30,000 allowed to him. As against this, the revenue has come up on cross objection contesting that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not justified in granting the relief of Rs. 30,000 on account of wastage. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the higher quantum of wastage during the year of account was on account of the fact that the assessee- firm had....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... claimed on account of wastage. 7. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, contended that there was no justification for the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to allow even the amount of Rs. 30,000 as a deduction on account of wastage. It was submitted that the proper registers were not produced before the income tax Officer and hence the deduction given by the Appellate Assi....