1,63,950 which sum on appeal was reduced to Rs.
82,250 paid as penalty on ordinary principles of companymercial accounting.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 25, 1955, of the former Bombay High Court in I.T.R. No.
At the instance of the respondent the Tribunal referred the following question to the High Court for its opinion Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the payment of Rs.
The Income tax Officer disallowed this claim which was also disallowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
Consignments, which were imported by steamer and were valued at Rs.
Goods which had been ordered by the appellant were received partly by steamer and partly by companyntry craft.
This sum was paid and the dates were released.
On appeal to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal this sum was held to be allowable by a majority of two to one.
82,250.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.110 of 1957.
N. Kripal and D. Gupta, for the Respondent.
November 24.
The appellant is a firm doing the business of importing dates from abroad and selling them in India.
At the relevant time the import of dates by steamers was prohibited by two numberifications dated December 12, 1946, and June 4, 1947, but they were permitted to be brought by companyntry craft.
The appeal relates to the assessment year 1949 50, the accounting year ended on July 25, 1948.
A. Palkhivala and I. N. Shroff, for the Appellant.
During the accounting year the appellant imported dates from Iraq.
5 lacs were companyfiscated by the Customs Authorities under s. 167, item 8 of the Sea Customs Act but under s. 183 of that Act the, appellant was given an option to pay fines aggregating Rs.
Against this judgment the appellant firm has companye in appeal to this Court by special leave.
against the assessee firm who is the appellant before us, the respondent being the Commissioner of Income tax.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay answering the question submitted to it.
57/X of 1954.
