2012 (6) TMI 153

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... udhakar Reddy, Vijay Pal Rao, JJ. Haresh Purushottam Das, for the Appellant Sunil Kumar Singh for the Respondent ORDER J. Sudhakar Reddy (A.M.): This appeal preferred by the assessee, is directed against the impugned order dated 29th January 208, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-XX, Mumbai, for assessment year 2001-02. 2. There is a delay of ten days in filing of this appeal. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the delay. After perusing the same and hearing both the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing this appeal in time. Consequently, we condone the delay. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... als) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. "(1) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) - XX, Mumbai., [hereinafter referred as 'the learned CIT(A)'J erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 8,50,000/- disregarding the details, documents and explanations given in respect of the payment of supervision charges. (2) On the facts and circumstances, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding you're your Appellant failed to produce confirmations or complete address despite of giving the ample opportunity which is contrary to the fact as Your Appellant had given, submitted and explained the claim. (3) On the facts and circumstances Your Appellant prays that the su .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 6. Learned Departmental Representative, Mr. S.K. Singh, on behalf of the Revenue, opposed the contentions by pointing out that the assessee has not discharged the burden that lay on her to prove her claim of having incurred supervisory charges. He took this bench to the orders of the Assessing Officer and Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that the assessee could not produce the parties or even complete address has not been filed to prove the payments. He submitted that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) be upheld. 7. Rival contentions heard. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the papers on record, as well as the case laws cited before us, we hold as follows:- 8. As far .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X