COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. MOHTA ISPAT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE IT Department is seeking reference of the following two questions of law to this Court :

(2.) THE assessment year in question is 1981-82. As regards question No. 2 aforesaid, a similar question was sought to be realised by the petitioner in respect of asst. yr. 1980-81 in ITC No. 114 of 1987. By a separate order passed today, were have declined to call for a reference in that case as in our opinion the said question is a pure question of fact and no question of law arises.

(3.) THE respondent claimed the difference in the price paid and the value of the goods received as a loss. The ITO and the CIT (A) disallowed the loss but the Tribunal came to the conclusion that in actual fact the respondent did not receive more than 923.360 MT plus 225.640 MT of scrap. It was also an admitted fact that the ship had started burning when it was in India and thereafter it left the territorial waters of India. The clam of the assessee was not accepted by the insurance company and though efforts were made to get the payment but nothing was received by the assessee. It was also observed by the Tribunal that the agreement with regard to the pro rata allotment of scrap to the respondent was singed on 29th Aug., 1980, that is to say, during the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1981-82. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that loss did occur to the assessee and that it was extremely doubtful that the assessee could get reimbursement after the sale of the ship and the burnt cargo in Pakistan. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that there correspondence on the record which indicated that the cargo was being sold in Pakistan and money may have been received by the assessee. What the learned counsel for the petitioner wants the assesses to do is to prove the negative. The assessee had stated before the IT authorities that it had not received any compensation or money after the ship had left the territorial waters of India. No evidence has been placed on record to show that any amount was ever repatriated from Pakistan or anywhere else to India to the account of the assessee. At the Bar. Mr. Vaish has stated that in respect of the other importers, who were similarly placed to the respondent, the loss has been allowed by the IT Department itself. Be that as it may, we do not find any question law arising from the Tribunal's order. The conclusion of the Tribunal that loss was suffered by the respondent in the relevant assessment year is a finding of fact which cannot be called perverse and it also cannot be said that the same is based on no evidence or irrelevant evidence. In our opinion, no question of law arises. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.