Skip to content


Akhatari Begum and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMiscellaneous Civil Case Nos. 65 and 66 of 1979
Judge
Reported in[1982]134ITR395(MP)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 145(1)
AppellantAkhatari Begum and Sons
RespondentCommissioner of Income-tax
Appellant AdvocateGoyal, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS.C. Bagadiya, Adv.
Excerpt:
- - 66 of 1979, as in both these cases the assessee as well as the question of law are common. act, a best judgment assessment was made by estimating the optimum receipts and applying a net profit rate. clearly the finding is one of fact and no questionof law could arise therefrom......received on account ofluggage is to be added in computing the net income because it involves no extra expenditure.' 5. the tribunal keeping in view this finding that the receipts on transport of luggage did not involve any extra expenditure, rejected the assessee'sclaim that some expenditure was involved in the transport of luggage alsoand the same should have been considered for determining the net profitfrom luggage receipts. clearly the finding is one of fact and no questionof law could arise therefrom.6. learned counsel for the assessee very strenuously argued that whilecarrying luggage there was always some extra expenditure in terms ofwear and tear and also extra consumption of diesel, etc., and, therefore,this ought to have been taken into consideration by the authorities.....
Judgment:

Shukla, J.

1. This order shall also dispose of Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 66 of 1979, as in both these cases the assessee as well as the question of law are common.

2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, has referred the following question for our opinion :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the separate addition of luggage receipts to the total income '

3. This question arises for assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. The assessee derives income from business of plying passenger buses. The ITO rejected the book results. Acting under the proviso to Section 145(3) of the I.T. Act, a best judgment assessment was made by estimating the optimum receipts and applying a net profit rate. The assessee also used to charge fare for carrying luggage of the passengers travelling in its buses. This amount was added in the net profit by the ITO for computing the total income. The assessee's contention was that even on the luggage receipts a net profit rate should have been applied and the entire receipt should not have been added as profit. The contention was rejected by the ITO and the AAC.

4. When the matter came up before the Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal considered the argument of the assessee and observed :

' What we feel is that the rate of 20% is to be calculated after excluding the passenger tax, but the whole of the amount received on account ofluggage is to be added in computing the net income because it involves no extra expenditure.'

5. The Tribunal keeping in view this finding that the receipts on transport of luggage did not involve any extra expenditure, rejected the assessee'sclaim that some expenditure was involved in the transport of luggage alsoand the same should have been considered for determining the net profitfrom luggage receipts. Clearly the finding is one of fact and no questionof law could arise therefrom.

6. Learned counsel for the assessee very strenuously argued that whilecarrying luggage there was always some extra expenditure in terms ofwear and tear and also extra consumption of diesel, etc., and, therefore,this ought to have been taken into consideration by the authorities below.It is not necessary for us to comment on this argument because the factwhether the transport of luggage involved any extra expenditure was aquestion of fact which only the Tribunal was competent to decide. The 'Tribunal answered this against the assessee and this being a finding of factends the matter.

7. We, therefore, decline to answer this question. There shall be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //