TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1971 (1) TMI 12
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, 1922, for the assessment year 1952-53, the company claimed that out of the profits received, the amount of Rs. 14,30,561 was not taxable because the company had acted in purchasing and selling jute as agent of Dalmia Cement Paper Marketing Company Ltd., hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as "D.C.P.M. Ltd.". This contention was rejected by the Income-tax Officer and by the Assistant Commissioner of Income tax. The order was confirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the claim of the company would not be accepted, because : (1) there was no evidence, documentary or otherwise contemporaneous with the transactions requiring the assessee to undertake transactions of sale and purchase on behalf of D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s on the record of the court a credit advice dated August 31, 1951, sent by the D.C.P.M. Ltd. This appeal has been filed before us with certificate granted by the High Court, observing that the appeal raised "substantial questions of law of far-reaching private importance between the parties". There has been a sequence of exceptional orders : the Tribunal after deciding the appeal on appreciation of evidence drew up a statement of case in relation to a question which was essentially one of fact : the High Court recorded an answer disagreeing with the Tribunal on matters of appreciation of evidence, and then proceeded to grant a certificate to this court without specifying the "substantial questions of law of far-raching importance." B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions were not on behalf of the D.C.P.M. Ltd. but of the assessee-company. In reaching that conclusion the Tribunal is not shown to have committed any error of law. The High Court could not in exercise of its advisory jurisdiction express a different view. Referring to the second ground, the High Court observed that the prevailing custom in the trade was to debit the supplier's ledger with the actual payment and no entry need be made in the books of account of the assessee immediately or periodically after the transactions, but the adjustment entries may be posted after the relevant transactions of sale were completed, and that the Tribunal rejected without cogent reasons the explanation given by the assessee-company. But in so observing, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e books of the assessee-company. Finally, the High Court observed that the absence of entries of brokerage, commission, etc., in the books of the assessee-company for the service rendered was also "explainable", because the brokerage was directly paid to the assessee by the Albion Jute Company and the New Central Jute Company to whom the jute was ultimately sold. But if the transactions were carried through on behalf of the D.C.P.M. Ltd. there would be some entry posted with regard to the payment of brokerage or commission by the D.C.P.M. Ltd. The High Court observed that some indication of the explanation with regard to grounds (3) and (4) was given before the Income-tax Officer. Assuming that it was so, if the Tribunal having regard....