AI Drafter 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in view the reasons given therein, which are duly supported by an affidavit filed by the assessee affirming the relevant facts on oath, we are satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the delay on the part of the assessee in filing its appeal before the Tribunal. Even the ld. D.R. has not raised any objection in this regard. We, therefore, condone the delay on the part of the assessee in filing its appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to dispose of the same on merit. 3. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are as follows:- The assessee is a partnership firm, which carried on the business of buying, selling, trading or otherwise dealing in all kinds of lottery tickets during the period from 01.06.2009 to 31.05.2011. A survey under section 133A was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 27.01.2010, during the course of which certain books of account and loose papers were impounded. Thereafter the return of income for the year under consideration was filed by the assessee on 12.10.2010, wherein profit from the business of dealing in lottery tickets was shown by the assessee at Rs. 88,00,00,000/- before depreciation and interest and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y collect the money from the public through dealers and stockists) Lottery tickets actually sold 62% of 3800= 2356 tickets, Sales realization @ 86.5 prisa average per ticket= Rs. 2050 crores (sale prices shown to vary from 81 paise to 94 paise per ticket) Prize winnings tickets attributable to the sold tickets is 62% of 2660 i.e. the total prize winning tickets of Rs. 1650 crores, will go to the holders of the tickets actually sold by these marketing entities. Gross profit Rs. 2050 crores minus Rs. 1650 crores = Rs. 400 crores (total earnings from the entire business of Bhutan lotteries)". 4. From the above gross profit estimated at Rs. 400 crores, royalty paid to Royal Government of Bhutan amounting to Rs. 110 crores and the actual selling expenses spent by the marketing entities amounting to Rs. 20 crores were deducted by the Assessing Officer and the net profit from the entire business of Bhutan Lotteries was worked out by him at Rs. 270 crores. The net profit of Rs. 270 crores so worked out was divided by the Assessing Officer between the assessee-firm and the other distributors in the ratio of their sales and accordingly, the net profit of the assessee from the bus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tax Act, 1961 asking us to show cause as to why the provisions of the said section should not be invoked in our case for the assessment year 2010-11, as it appears to you that the Assessing Officer (AO) allegedly omitted to consider certain issues viz. alleged payment of commission in the sum of Rs. 551,30,41,569/- to retailers on account of 'prize winning tickets', which according to you came within the ambit of section 194G of the said Act; and that since such payment was made without deducting any tax at source, the same, according to you, was not allowable as an expenditure in view of the provisions contained in section 40(a)(ia) of the said Act. 2. You have also alleged in your said purported notice dated 18th March, 2015 that since the Assessing Officer did not disallow the said sum of Rs. 551,30,41,569/-, while passing the assessment order in our case on March, 2013 under section 143(3)/144 of the said Act in respect of the assessment year 2010-11, the said Assessment Order, according to you, was allegedly erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the said Act. 3. At the very outset, we deny and disput....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....purchased by it in bulk from PLE on 'Actual Sold Basis'; iv. The Assessee Firm, in its turn had appointed more than 100 Stockists in the South Bengal Area, for ultimate sale of the Paper Lottery Tickets, to general public, in terms of Standard Agreements, a sample copy whereof is already on the assessment records; v. The Stockists appointed by the Assessee Firm, in their turn, engaged various persons as Sub-Stockists, who in turn, engaged Retailers, and the retailers used to sell the Paper Lottery Tickets to the general public, either directly or through their agents. It may be noted that the Assessee Firm has or had no connection whatsoever either with the Sub-Stockists and/or with the Retailers and/or with their respective Agents; vi. The Assessee Firm, on the basis of requirements placed by its Stockists, used to supply the specified required number of Paper Lottery Tickets to each of them from time to time on FOR basis, with an option to intimate to the Assessee Firm, full details of unsold tickets. In other words, here too the sale and supply of Lottery Tickets by the Assessee Firm to its Stockists has always been on "Actual Sold Basis" only;....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Stockists were also required to return the prize winning tickets against which they had disbursed prizes of the value not exceeding Rs. 5,000/- per ticket; and such prize winning tickets, in its turn, were also handed over by it to PLE, while seeking reimbursements therefor, against the purchase consideration of lottery tickets payable by it to PLE; xv. The Stockists were also required to return to the Assessee Firm, all unsold Paper Lottery Tickets, which the Assessee Firm, in its turn, used to return to PLE, for ultimate destruction thereof by the Royal Government of Bhutan; xvi. The prize winning tickets against which the Stockists sought reimbursement from the Assessee Firm, were also returned by the Assessee Firm to PLE, while seeking similar corresponding reimbursements from PLE; xvii. Sometimes, disputes arose relating to prize winning tickets, with reference to which the Stockists sought reimbursements from the Assessee Firm. These disputes mostly related to tampering of winning tickets and/or wrong claim of prizes, based on wrong reading of prize winning number printed on the tickets. At the time, when the Bills initially raised by the Assessee F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith range of printed number of the entire bundle of 100 tickets); and each bundle of 1000 paper lottery tickets [in addition to ten 'super/gold tickets'] contained one 'special ticket' (with range of printed number of the entire bundle of 1000 tickets); 14. Any buyer of either of the said two bundles get these 'super/gold/special tickets' along with the bundle of 100/1000 tickets. The 'super/gold/special tickets' also participate in the draw, through the independent numbers of 100/1000 tickets. The number printed on these tickets is only the 'range of the entire bundle of 100/1000 lottery tickets', as the case may be. If an individual buyer buys the whole bundle, he automatically gets the 'super/gold/special tickets' already contained in the bundle. When a retailer buys the bundles, he may sell the entire bundle to anyone person; or in the alternative, he may sell one or more tickets, in loose form, to one or more persons. In such cases, the retailer himself may retain the 'super! gold/special ticket'. But such 'super/gold/special tickets' are not meant to be retained by the distributor/stockist/agent/sub-agent/reta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etailers etc. Further, the Assessee Firm did not pay and/or distribute any prizes on any prize winning tickets to any persons whatsoever. In so far as, the prize money of the value not exceeding Rs. 5,000/- is concerned, the same was paid and/or distributed directly to the prize winners by the agents/sub-agents/retailers for and/or on behalf of RGB, and not by the Assessee Firm, who was merely a distributor. 19. The Assessee Firm did not debit its Profit & loss Account with the prize money paid on the winning tickets. What is debited in the Profit & Loss Account of the Assessee Firm is the purchase consideration payable by it to M/s. Pema Lhaden Enterprise for purchase of lottery tickets. 20. The Assessee Firm states that the sum of Rs. 551,30,41,569/- representing payments made by stockists/agents/sub-agents/retailers by way of prizes won on 'super/gold/special tickets' for and on behalf of RGB, has not been debited by the Assessee Firm, in its books of accounts, as an expenditure. The prize monies paid on the winning tickets is the expenditure of RGB, and not of the distributors/stockists/agents/sub-agents/retailers etc. The said amount has been claimed by the stock....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at no portion of the sum of Rs. 551,30,41,569/-referred to by you in your impugned Show Cause Notice dated 18th March, 2015 purportedly issued under section 263 of the said Act is payment of commission within the meaning of section 194G of the said Act, as arbitrarily and wrongly alleged by you, or otherwise or at all. 25. We say and submit that the said sum of Rs. 551,30,41,569/- is part of Rs. 1326,81,63,490/- (kindly see column 6 of the Statement annexed hereto and marked with the letter '8') being the value of prizes won on the sold tickets, which amount was reimbursed by us to the stockists, who in turn made reimbursements to their agents/sub-agents/retailers etc. The said sum of Rs. 1326,81,63,490/- was deducted by us from the net purchase value in the aggregate sum of Rs. 1393,22,38,446/- (kindly see column 5 of the Statement annexed hereto and marked with the letter 'B'), payable by us to PLE for purchase of Bhutan paper lottery tickets in terms of the Agreement executed on 1st June, 2009 between the Assessee Firm and PLE, a copy whereof is already on our assessment records. 26. As already stated earlier, since our Profit and loss A/c for the financial....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Accounts for the financial year ending 31st March, 2010 corresponding to the assessment year 2010-11; ii. A columnar Statement giving column wise details of the entries appearing in our ledger in the account of Pema Lhaden Enterprise (PLE) during the said period; iii. A columnar statement giving column wise details of the entries appearing in our books of accounts in respect of 126 Stockists to whom lottery tickets of both Bhutan and West Bengal were sold by us during the said financial year for onward sale to general public through agents/ sub-agents/retailers etc.; iv. A copy of the Ledger accounts of ten of our Stockists (by way of sample) to whom lottery tickets of both Bhutan and West Bengal were sold by us during the said financial year, for onward sale to general public through agents/sub-agents/retailers, etc. v. A reconciliation statement of amounts payable/receivable in respect of paper lottery tickets purchased/sold during the financial year ending 31st March, 2010, as also of prizes paid on PWT & PWT-1 lottery tickets during the said period. vi. Photocopy of two pages of the lottery scheme by way of sample". 8. The written submissions filed by the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ompany, the proprietorship concern of Shri S. Martin. In the course of the assessment proceeding, no satisfactory explanation could be adduced by Sri Martin regarding the aforesaid frequent change of entities and non-closure of their multiple bank accounts. As a result of a thorough probe by the assessing officer about the modus operandi of the entire chain of Bhutan lottery business starting from Bhutan to the final lottery buying public in West Bengal, it stood established that Shri S. Martin along with his cahoots Shri Vira and Sri Chowrasia had masterminded a complex tax evasion network. The assessee group has refused to give any explanation as to why the intermediary concerns in the whole chain (periodically discontinued) were not formally dissolved and the requisite intimation provided by the concerned assessing Officer. It has been observed that M/s. Pema Lhaden Enterprise (Proprietor Ms. Pema Lhaden was appointed the assessee group with the prior concurrence of the Royal Govt of Bhutan (RGB) as the sole purchaser (again in the nature of an intermediary) with the primary objective of avoidance of the payment of service tax introduced by the Finance Bill, 2008. The same has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugh a tender process floated by the RGB. As per this agreement, the tickets were to be purchased by the Martin Group from the RGB on "All Sold Basis" which entitled the group to a discounted price of 26% of the M.R.P. along with the risk of paying for the unsold tickets and simultaneously gaining the winnings from the unsold tickets. By the own admission of Shri Martin, various State Govts., i.e. Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab and West Bengal used to sell tickets to him on "All Sold Basis" only and that too for a much lesser discount than allowed by the RGB. It is, therefore, established that where the lotteries are conducted by the Govts. (subjected to a high degree of regulation and transparency) the "All Sold Basis" is the usual norm. Shri S. Martin in his deposition dated 30-12-2013 had contended that the basis of sale was subsequently changed by the RGB to the "actual sold basis" through introduction of an addendum in the original agreement which was stated to have been effected without any re-tendering process. It is pertinent to mention that the original agreement which operated on "All Sold Basis" did not have any clause requiring the sol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were the defacto conductors of the Bhutan lotteries. Therefore, the arguments of the Id. A.Rs that the lottery operation was exclusively controlled by the RGB and that the lottery tickets were sold by it on "Actual Sold Basis" are not acceptable. The perusal of the various documents Impounded during survey operation revealed that the same contained payments to various stockists against the entries having narrations PWT and PWT-1. When required to explain the exact nature and significance of such payments, the assesse firm had come out with various contradictory submissions and it kept on changing its stand vis-a vis the issue. PWT basically represented the prize winning tickets. Hence the figures indicated against the said abbreviation implied payments relating to the tickets which won the prizes. It has been the contention of the Id. A.Rs that the prizes not exceeding Rs. 5000/- declared on the paper lottery tickets are required to be disbursed to the general public directly by the stockists/sub-stockists/retailers/agents appointed by assessee and the stockists and that the prize money exceeding Rs. 5000/- was to be paid by the RGB only. It has been contended that stockists use....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the payment. The above contentions of the Id. A.R.s regarding the payments on the prize winning tickets and the consequent disbursements taking place among the PLE, the assessee, stockists, sub-stockists, agents etc. have carefully been examined vis-a-vis the findings of the A.O. during the assessment proceeding and subsequently on the basis of the documents obtained and the statements of the major partner of the assessee. The ledger account of the RGB (Directorate of Lotteries) as appearing in the books of a/cs of FGSIPL Bhutan branch revealed that even the prizes above Rs. 5000/- were all paid by FGSIPL from its a/c no. 5002 maintained with the Bhutan National Bank and not by the RGB. Not a single prize was found to have been paid by the RGB. As per the account of the RGB appearing in the books of M/s Martin Lotteries Agencies Ltd., it has been debited by passing entries prize money received by way of journal entries. In fact, the said company never received any prize money from the RGB, the same being only a book entry. In the said account there was no mention of PWT and PWT-l. The agreement dated 15-05-2008 does not state that the RGB will be declaring two different types of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the assessee firm, because without their active help the assessee firm and for that matter the Martin Group would not have been in a position to fudge the accounts by shifting the prize winning tickets of the unsold lot to the sold lot. As a result, these stockists have also been found to be changing their versions frequently regarding the physical features of the super and special tickets as well as the persons who can claim the same. At times they stated that the super and special tickets are part of the saleable lottery ticket booklets and at other times they claim the same to be a separate booklet by itself. This change in versions was prompted when the A.O. raised the question of deduction of tax at source in terms of the provisions ofS.194G of the I.T. Act. In order to ascertain the correct nature of PWT-1 the A.O. also conducted enquiries with the Director of Lotteries, West Bengal. As per his reply dated 21-05-2014, it has been gathered that though the nomenclature "super and special tickets" is given to PWT-1, the same are basically in the nature of incentives for the sellers and not payable to the winners of the lottery tickets. It is, therefore, established beyond doub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gure reflected in the P&L a/c and was thus in the nature of an expenditure claimed by the assessee. For non-deduction of tax at source this expenditure ought to have been disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the LT. Act. Since the A.O. omitted to make the said disallowance, the assessment order dated 22-03-2013 was rendered grossly erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue". 9. On the basis of the above observations and findings recorded by him, the ld. CIT held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/144 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and setting aside the same by exercising the powers conferred upon him under section 263, he directed the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment de novo by taking cognizance of the issues raised by him after conducting necessary enquiries in that regard. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. Pr. CIT passed under section 263, the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the outset, explained the entire modus operandi of the business through which the lottery tickets issued by the Royal Government of Bhutan were distribute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ists/sub-stockists and the stockist appointed by the assessee-firm in turn used to seek reimbursement of disbursed prize monies by way of adjustment against the respective weekly bills drawn by the assessee-firm on them. He submitted that the assessee-firm in turn claimed reimbursement of the disbursed prize monies from PLE by way of adjustment against the amount due to the said entity towards purchase of lottery tickets. 12. The ld. counsel for the assessee also explained that there was another scheme framed by the Royal Government of Bhutan called as Prize Winning Tickets(1) (in short PWT-1). He submitted that the tickets under this scheme described as "super and special lottery tickets" or "bulk tickets" were separately printed and each bundle of 100 tickets contained one 'super/gold ticket', while each bundle of such 1000 tickets contained 'special ticket'. He explained that any buyer of either of the said two bundles got these 'super/gold/special tickets' and these 'super/gold/special tickets' also participated in the draw through the independent numbers. He submitted that when a retailer bought the bundles, he could sell the entire bundle to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of section 40(a)(ia) thus should emerge from its principal-agent relationship and disallowance by invoking the said provision could be made in the instant case only if there was a principal-agent relationship between the assesese and the stockists and the impugned payments constituted income in the nature of commission on the sale of lottery tickets in the hands of the stockists. He contended that the relationship between the assessee and the stockists, however, was that of seller and buyer on principle to principle basis and therefore, the amount of prize money could not be treated as commission on sale of lottery tickets paid by the assessee to the stockists arising on account of principal-agent relationship so as to attract the provisions of section 194G as well as the consequential disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). In support of this contention, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Sikkim High Court in the case of Future Gaming and Hotel Services Pvt. Limited -vs.- Union of India (WP(C) No. 39 of 2015 dated 14.10.2015), wherein it was held that activities of the lottery distributors did not constitute the service as the activity comprising of promotion, organizing, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er/special tickets (PWT-1) in terms of section 204 read with sections 194B and 194G of the Act as the person responsible for paying prize monies exceeding Rs. 5,000/- was the Royal Government of Bhutan, while the person responsible for paying prize monies upto Rs. 5,000/- were the retailers/sellers, who had ultimately sold the tickets to the general public. He submitted that even the prize money upto Rs. 5,000/- in respect of bulk tickets retained by the retailers/last sellers were paid by sub-stockists. He contended that the assessee-firm thus never paid any prize money (either PWT or PWT-1) either to the lottery playing public or to the retailers/last sellers and it, therefore, cannot be treated as person responsible for paying prize monies in terms of section 204 and the question of liability to deduct tax under section 194G or consequential disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) would not arise. 16. The ld. counsel for the assessee further contended that the amount in question was not in the nature of any commission or remuneration paid to the stockists by the assessee, but the same represented reimbursement of prizes from the winning lottery tickets, which were paid by the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under section 40(a)(ia) thus would not arise even on this count. 18. Without prejudice to all his arguments already advanced and as an alternative, the ld. counsel for the assessee contended that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the assessee was required to deduct tax at source from the amount in question representing payment/reimbursement of prize money on lottery tickets, no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct tax at source was liable to be made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment completed under section 143(3)/144, wherein the books of account of the assessee were rejected by the Assessing Officer and the income from business was determined by him on estimated basis. He contended that when the income of the assessee was determined on estimated basis after rejecting the books of account, the Assessing Officer could not rely on the same books of account of the assessee for making a disallowance separately of any expenditure claimed therein by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). In support of this contention, he relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Arjun Bhowmick v. DCIT re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/144 without making the said disallowance, therefore, was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and the ld. Pr. CIT was fully justified to revise the same by exercising the powers conferred upon him under section 263. 21. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material available on record. Although the Assessing Officer in the assessment completed under section 143(3) as well as the ld. CIT in his impugned order passed under section 263 has levelled allegation against the assessee of having master minded a complex tax evasion network through a web of transactions routed through bogus/paper/front entities created to distance actual profits from the lottery business and thereby indulged in concealment of income on the basis of adverse findings of survey, enquiries made independently, statements of the concerned persons recorded under section 131 etc. and the assessee has made a detailed submission at the time of assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer as well as during the course of proceedings under section 263 before the ld. CIT and has also filed a writ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t where an assessee fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B on any such sum but is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 201, then, for the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee referred to in the said proviso."] "Section 194G. Any person who is responsible for paying, on or after the 1st day of October, 1991 to any person, who is or has been stocking, distributing, purchasing or selling lottery tickets, any income by way of commission, remuneration or prize (by whatever name called) on such tickets in an amount exceeding one thousand rupees shall, at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment of such income in cash or by the issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct income-tax thereon at the rate of ten per cent. (2) ^5[***] (3) ^5[***] Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, where any income is credited to any account, whether calle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in Clause (i) of Explanation 194H includes any payment received or receivable, directly or indirectly, by a person acting on behalf of another person for services rendered, inter alia, for the purpose of buying or selling of goods and as rightly contended by the ld. counsel for the assessee, there has to be a relationship of principal-agent between the concerned two persons in order to say that the payment received or receivable by one person acting on behalf of another person for the services rendered is in the nature of commission. In this regard, the ld. counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Sikkim in the case of M/s. Future Gaming & Hotel Services Pvt. Limited v. Union of India rendered on 24.01.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 39 of 2015. In the said case, the petitioner was engaged in the business of sale of paper lottery tickets and had procured, during the course of said business, the lottery tickets in bulk from the Government and resold the same to the public at large through various agents, stockists, re-sellers, etc. The issue that arose for the consideration of Hon'ble High Court of Sikkim was whether the petitioner was liable to p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case of Future Gaming and Hotel Services Pvt. Limited (supra), we agree with the contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the amount in question was not in the nature of commission as defined in clause (i) of Explanation to Section 194H so as to attract the provision of section 40(a)(ia) read with section 194G. In our opinion, the amount in question representing the disbursal of prize monies on lottery tickets thus was not liable to be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) in the facts and circumstances of the case and there was no error in the order of the Assessing Officer not making such disallowance as alleged by the ld. CIT justifying revision under section 263. 25. The ld. counsel for the assessee has also raised a plea that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument, that the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source from the amount in question disbursed as prize monies on lottery tickets under section 194G, no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could be made for the failure of the assessee to do so in the assessment completed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/144 since the books of account of the assessee were rejected by him by invoking the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry addition related to business income or business receipts and no further disallowance can be made. We see force in the argument of the assessee that when the income of the assessee was computed applying gross profit rate and no deduction was allowed in regard to the expenses claimed by the assessee, there was no need to look into the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act or section 37 of the Act. Accordingly, no disallowance could have been made in view of the above facts that once the profit is estimated by applying net profit rate. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the other disallowances and restrict the addition by applying Net Profit rate @ 8% of gross receipts. Appeal of assessee is allowed". 26. Against the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Shri Arun Bhowmik (supra), an appeal under section 260A of the Act was filed by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and one of the questions raised before the Hon'ble High Court was "whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law to direct that once profit rate is estimated, further disallowance on the same books of account cannot be made in the light ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal upheld the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax passed under section 263 and when the matter reached to the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court on a reference made by the assessee, Their Lordships reversed the order of the Tribunal and held that where the books of account had been rejected, the Revenue could not rely on the same books for addition of an extra item of expenditure. It was noted by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court that the pattern of assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961, is given by section 29 which states that the income from profits and gains of business shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in section 30 to 43D of the Act. It was also noted that section 40 provides for certain disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding that those amounts are allowed generally under other sections. It was observed by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court that the computation under section 29 is to be made under section 145 on the basis of the books regularly maintained by the assessee and if those books are not correct or complete, the Income Tax Officer may reject those books and estimate the income to the best of his judgm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the payee. (ii) The assessee cannot be treated as "the person responsible for paying" the prize monies on lottery tickets in terms of section 204 read with sections 194B and 194G of the Act, as the person responsible for paying prize monies exceeding Rs. 5,000/- was Royal Government of Bhutan, while the persons responsible for payment of prize monies upto Rs. 5,000/- were the retailers /sellers, who had ultimately sold the tickets to the general public and the question of liability to deduct tax under section 194G or consequential disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) would not arise. (iii) The amount in question was not in the nature of any commission or remuneration paid to the stockists by the assessee but the same represented reimbursement of prizes from the winning lottery tickets upto Rs. 5,000/-, which were paid by the retailers to the general public. Keeping in view this nature of the said amount, the deduction of tax at source, if any, was required to be made as per the provisions of section 194B applicable to payment of income by way of winning from any lottery, etc. and not under section 194G and since the provisions of section 194B were applicable only when such....