Skip to main content

Only Profit Element in Sale can be treated as income not the Entire sale consideration

In Shri Nikhil Garg vs Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur), appeal was filed before the ITAT against the order of the CIT(A).

Background

The Audit Party of I.T. Department observed a difference of Rs. 66,35,957/- between the total turnover declared in the Profit & Loss Account and Sales Tax Assessment Order and the AO completed the impugned reassessment u/s 143(3)/263 of the Act vide order dated 05.03.2015 by making addition of Rs.66,35,957 (difference in turnover). 

ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of both the parties and material placed on record, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Against which, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the ITAT on the grounds mentioned above.

The Appellant submitted that the assessee has manifestly proved on record that the difference between the declared sales and the sales as per VAT return was “consignment sale” made by the assessee on behalf of the consigner (an independent party), therefore, the additions so made were completely contrary to the provisions of law and the facts and evidences available on record. the consignment sale was not considered as part of total sales of the assessee. and then the entire amount of 'Consignment Sales', thus, cannot be treated as the income of the assessee.

Judgment

The ITAT referred to CIT v President Industries (2000) 158 CTR 372 (Guj) and K Venkatesh vs Income Tax Officer (2016) 47 CCH 0447, held that whether the purported sale is “consignment sale” or “ordinary sale” is immaterial at this stage as even if the said sales undertaken by the assessee is treated as ordinary sale instead of consignment sale then also the entire sales cannot be treated as an income of the assessee. Thus, keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble High Court as well as the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, the ITAT was of the view that the entire sale consideration cannot be treated as income of the assessee but the addition could be made only to the extent of estimated profits embedded in sales,



Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more