JAGAT EXPLOSIVES Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant.

(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in IT Appeal No. 455/2000. The appellant assessee was a consignment agent for supply of explosive goods to I.C.I. India Limited in Rajasthan. In view of the information received, a survey under Section 133A was carried out in the case of Pooja Roadlines, Udaipur and some bill books were impounded under Section 131 of the Act. On scrutiny of the bill books of M/s Pooja Roadlines, it was noticed that the vans (motor vehicles) owned by the assessee had been used for transportation of goods to various places. On examination, it was found that the assessee had entered into an agreement with M/s India Explosives Ltd. for supplying trading items of the principal company at Udaipur. The vans owned by the assessee were used for getting goods from Udaipur to Gomia in Bihar. The vans so used for delivering goods were to be unloaded at Udaipur and empty vans were to be sent to Bihar for obtaining the consignment. In short, the vans were not to be used for getting other goods while sending and bringing the goods from Gomia to Udaipur. The principal company bore the cost of the whole transportation expenses to and fro.

(3.) THE appellant assessee has challenged the order of the Tribunal in the present appeal. The learned advocate Mr. Kothari appearing for the appellant submitted that in view of the rectification order, it is clear that there was lease agreement and therefore, the member of the Tribunal should have confirmed the deletion and should have allowed the appeal in toto. It is submitted that by rectification, the whole complexion of the order is changed.