AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 30-8-2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ''A'' in ITA Nos. 3098 and 2664/ Del./2004 relevant for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01.
The only issue that has been raised in this appeal filed u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is with regard to the date of commencement of business of the assessed.
According to the revenue, the assessed had commenced business on15-9-1999 whereas according to the assessed, business was commenced much earlier, that is, on 9-2-1999 when it entered into an agreement with M/s. Dominion Chemical Industries Ltd. (DCIL).
4.The assessed is engaged in trading of health care and nutritional products as mentioned by it in its return of income. It had declared a total loss of about Rs. 24 lakhs which had been claimed to be carried forward as business loss. The assessed had entered into an agreement dated 9-2-1999 with DCIL, who was appointed as a supplier of the assessed. Purchase orders were placed with DCIL in March, 1999 and DCIL had in turn, placed orders with different vendors. Copies of these orders are available on record.
Notwithstanding this, the assessing officer was of the view that the assessed had not commenced its business on 9-2-1999. This view was accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, in appeal the Tribunal disagreed with the authorities below after taking into consideration the facts of the case.
It was noted by the learned Tribunal that transactions have been entered into between the assessed and DCIL in terms of the agreement dated 9-2-1999. In fact, a purchase order dated 9-3-1999 exactly one month after the agreement was entered into has been placed on record. This shows that the agreement was acted upon by the parties. To contend that in spite of this the assessed had not commenced its business and it had in fact commenced the business only in September, 1999 is based on a surmise which was not warranted on the basis of the correspondence on record.
We are of the view that the issue raised is essentially a question of fact that lies been arrived at. The decision arrived at by the Tribunal does not appear to be perverse in any case and, Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.