2014 (9) TMI 17

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the assessment year 1985-86. We shall refer to the said order subsequently. 3. The appellant-assessee, as an exporter, was issued import licence, dated 12th March, 1981, bearing No.P/W/2940019/C/XX/781/D/180. As per the terms, the appellant-assessee could import goods valued at Rs. 5,00,000/- under the licence or could have assigned the licence to an actual user of the imported goods. In the latter case, the appellant-assessee was required to ensure complete documentation and file papers before the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. The appellant-assessee had claimed that the aforesaid licence of Rs. 5,00,000/- was assigned to M/s. United Engineers & Traders (Regd.), Ghaziabad (for short, "UET"), a partnership firm, under an agreement dated 19th February, 1981, on receipt of premium of Rs. 37,500/-. It is an admitted and accepted case that the appellant-assessee could not file necessary documentation for utilization before the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. Believing that the appellant-assessee had sold the imported goods in the open market and earned unaccounted income, the assessments for the year in question were reopened. The Assessing Officer made an addi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....import licence, but this would not show that the import made under the invoice in question dated 3rd June, 1981 was genuine and the material imported under the invoice dated 3rd June, 1981 was not sold in the open market. In respect of the invoice dated 3rd July, 1981, the Assessing Officer did not make any addition after noticing that there was a letter from Asia Transport Company, addressed to UET that categorically stated that the imported goods had been cleared through them and had been transported to Delhi. They had forwarded a lorry receipt after endorsement in favour of UET. It was stated by Asia Transport Company that goods had been imported by UET and had been sent by them to the said party as clearing and forwarding agents. It is apparent that Asia Transport Company had supported the claim of the appellant-assessee in respect of the said invoice and the Assessing Officer gave benefit of doubt in respect of the said consignment. As recorded below, we have reservations on this finding and cannot regard and treat the said finding as conclusive and binding for the consignment covered under invoice dated 3rd June, 1981. Moreover the facts are distinguishable as for the invoice....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....yment. Joginder Singh had stated that blank letter heads were signed by him as actual user of the goods and this was done on consideration of a 2% commission. He denied any business dealing with M/s. H.M. Doyal & Co. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) emphasised that the appellant-assessee had not furnished utilisation of the licence on behalf of the UET in the statement submitted to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) observed that the bill of lading for the import had been endorsed by the appellant-assessee in favour of UET. This indicated and showed that they were aware of the import in question and plea to the contrary should not be accepted. He also recorded a finding that the appellant-assessee had not been able to show that in which account of Rs. 37,500/- purportedly received by them was credited and the appellant-assessee had pleaded inability to produce the said accounts on the ground that the books were not traceable. 7. The appeal filed by the appellant-assessee was dismissed by the Tribunal primarily relying upon the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and also noticing that Joginder Singh had....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has accepted that the letter of credit facility was opened by the firm with Union Bank of India and payments were made by them for the release of documents. He accepted that they had acted as an agent of UET, but the transaction was through Mool Chand Gupta, who was known to his uncle's friend, Sardari Lal Talwar, but he was not able to tell or state to whom the documents were handed for imported goods. The said Sardari Lal Talwar had expired. G. Kapoor could not answer the question as to how he had endorsed documents in favour of Dalmia International, i.e. the assessee. He denied having any business connection or relations with UET prior or later to this transaction. Joginder Singh, in his statement recorded under Section 131 of the Act, had stated that they were manufacturing cranes and power winches and had a turnover of Rs. 1.5 lacs to Rs. 2 lacs. Sometimes, they purchased imported material for their manufacturing operations. They had procured import licences upto 1970-71 but thereafter no licences had been procured by them. Their firm had not purchased any import licence after 1970-71 up till 1982-83, but some persons had approached him for signatures, as actual user for i....