At, High Court of Punjab and Haryana
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOKAL CHAND MITAL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE .S. SODHI
For the Appearing Parties: Ajay Mittal, Ashok Bhan, Advocates.
(1.) ON the direction of this court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar, has submitted the statement of the case with the following question of law for the opinion of this court:
"whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the relief of Rs. 14,000 in the item of yarn purchased after the closure of the manufacturing activity of the assessee on September 30, 1965 ?"
(2.) THE aforesaid question has to be considered in view of the following findings of the Tribunal:
"it is an admitted fact that even though wages were paid after September 30, 1965, there was no manufacturing done by the assessee after that date. The wages register is the assessee's own piece of evidence and this cannot be disregarded as an unreliable piece of evidence. Now, the weight of the total export is 5,722. 845 kgs. and the yarn purchased up to the end of September, 1965, is 5,291. 306 kgs. After excluding an estimated wastage of 5%, the yarn available for manufacturing will be 5,026 kgs. (5,291 kgs. less shortage 265 kgs.) and difference between 5,722 kgs. and 5,026 kgs. will thus be 696 or say 700 kgs. For obtaining 700 kgs. of goods, the yarn necessary will be about 735 kgs. In our opinion, the assessee deserves benefit for 735 kgs. of yarn utilised for goods actually exported. We will exclude 35 kgs. for this purpose and the assessee would be entitled to the benefit of 700 kgs. of yarn which must have been utilised for manufacturing the goods actually exported. We do not have before us the actual value of the yarn purchased prior to the end of September 1965, but the value of the closing stock placed by the assessee is Rs. 9 per lb. This gives the value of about Rs. 20 per kg. On this basis, the value of 700 kgs. of yarn will be Rs. 14,000. "
(3.) ON the basis of the aforesai
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
d finding, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal correctly sustained the relief. Accordingly, we answer the question in the affirmative, i. e. , against the Revenue, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.