TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (4) TMI 288
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in retaining the addition of Rs. 11,351 out of crew wages on wrong appreciation of facts. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition on account of car maintenance in the sum of Rs. 25,118. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in sustaining the addition of Rs. 18,18,228 on account of social allowance. 7. The learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the disallowance under s. 80-O on wrong appreciation of facts, without considering the fact that the original claim was not entertained for want of certificate which was a curable defect and the CIT(A) should have given the appropriate directions." 3. Ground Nos. 1 to 5 were not pressed by the assessee, and the same are, therefore, dismissed for want of prosecution. 4. As regards ground No. 6, the relevant material facts are like this. The assessee is engaged in the business of supplying manpower to the various shipping lines. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has received a sum of Rs. 18,18,228 from the principals and that the same is shown under the head 'Outstanding liabilities' in assessee's books of account. The A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of wages account filed before us. Having heard the rival contentions of having perused the material on record, we are of the considered view that the additional evidences filed by the assessee which mainly consists of letter dt. 11th May, 2001 from Nomadic Management AS should be admitted. While the AO never requisitioned the details about assessee's obligation to refund the money and decided the matter against the assessee on the basis of his inferences about the same, the assessee could indeed have been under the bona fide impression, as the assessee claims that he was in, that this additional evidence could not have been produced before the CIT(A) We have taken note of assessee's contention that the chartered accountant appearing before the CIT(A) was not well conversant with the legal position, and that it was only in the course of handling of matter with the present tax consultant that the assessee realized that he could file this additional evidence. In any event, having perused the additional evidence filed by the assessee, we are also satisfied that this letter is an important piece of evidence which has to be taken into account in the interest of justice. We have also he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; Mr. V. Gangadharan 6,200 Mr. H.M. Kutty Kannu 5,490 Mr. K.P. Paradeepan 4,920 22,610.00 ----- ---------- To Mr. Chavan J. Laxman in 1999-2000 6,000.00 To 2 crew members in 2000-01 Mr. Yusuf Dawood Amaye 4,920 Mr. Yunus Ismail Taj 4,416 9,336.60 &nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t you to pay the amount to the extent lying with you in Indian Rupees and the difference if any, for remittance will be further remitted to you. You will under no circumstances be made to suffer any loss on this account. We trust that the above will clarify remittance on account of social allowance. Best regards Nomadic Management AS Sd/- Erik Thulin" 7. Learned Departmental Representative has not been able to produce any material which controverts the factual aspects, or other material with regard to the nature of transaction, embedded in the above letter. In a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s sold. It was on the fact that their Lordships held that the receipt in question was a trading receipt. While holding so, their Lordships observed as follows: "It is apparent from the order of the AAC and has not peen disputed before us in the present case that the cash memos issued by the appellant to the purchasers in the auction sale that it was appellant who was shown as the seller. The amount realized by the appellant from the purchaser included sales-tax. The appellant, however, did not pay the sales-tax to the actual owner of the goods auctioned because statutory liability to pay the sales-tax was of the appellant. The appellant company did not also deposit the amount realized by it as sales-tax in the State exchequer because it took the position that the statutory provision creating that liability upon it was not valid. As the amount of sales-tax was received by the appellant in its character as auctioneer, the amount in our view, should be held as trading or business receipt. The appellant would, of course, be entitled to claim deduction of the amount as and when it pays it to the State Government." It is difficult to comprehend as to how the above stated views of t....