TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1976 (8) TMI 61
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls 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 filed by the Income-tax Officer, the dela....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner 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 the Central Excise Authorities and as such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gainst 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 to purchase tobacco from outside parties and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 Assistant Commissioner should not be upheld. 8. Aft....