TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (5) TMI 206
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l bearing ITA No.327 (Kol) of 1996 for the Assessment Year 1992-93. 2. Being dissatisfied, the assessee has come up with the present appeal. 3. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal may be summed up thus: a) The assessee is a private limited liability company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 and carries on the business of fabrication of iron and steel structurals. b) The assessee carries on the fabrication activity in respect of raw materials such as M.S. Angles, channels, plates, joists etc. provided to it by its customer, namely, Larsen & Toubro Ltd., on job-work basis. c) According to agreement between the assessee and the said customer, after completion of the work,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... company for the thefts which had taken place during the Assessment Year 1992-93. f) During the Assessment Year 1991-92, the assessee had to purchase steel materials costing Rs.8,79,765/- in order to make goods the shortfall in the quantify of raw materials required to be returned to the said customer. The said amount was claimed by the assessee as a deduction in its income-tax assessment for the Assessment Year 1991-92. But the Assessing Officer disallowed the said claim. Being aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who allowed the claim of the assessee. The Department preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs.2,17,905/- was to be allowed and if not, then the entire amount of Rs.4,57,777/- was to be allowed. j) The Assessing Officer thereafter made the requisite enquiry and was satisfied that the items purchased by the assessee by way of replacement of materials of the said customer and those covered by the debit note raised by the said customer were different and accordingly allowed the entire amount of Rs.4,57,777/-. k) Against the order dated November 13, 1995, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by the order impugned in this appeal set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and restored the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. Being dissatisfied, the assessee has co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dar, therefore, prays for setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal and for restoration of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 7. Mr. Bandopadyay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, has, on the other hand, opposed the aforesaid contention of Mr. Poddar and has supported the order passed by the Tribunal. According to Mr. Bandopadyay, the Tribunal below on the basis of materials on record having accepted the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer, this Court should not interfere with such finding of fact arrived at by Tribunal. Mr. Bandopadyay, therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Therefore, the only question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er demanded a higher standard of proof of the allegation of theft than that required under the law of the land. 11. On appeal, the CIT (A) set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and passed direction upon the Assessing Officer to examine as to whether the debit advice of the M/s. L & T was in respect of the same items which were purchased by the assessee by way of replacement of materials of the said customer. It was directed by the said Appellate Authority that if the items were found to be the same, then the deduction of only Rs.2,17,905/- was to be allowed and if not, then the entire amount of Rs.4,57,777/- was to be allowed. 12. On appeal before the Tribunal at the instance of the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal did not feel ....