9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letter dated 1.4.2004 conveying some decision of the awardee company that is New Chhotanagpur Truck Owners Association, wherein there is a stipulation of giving commission of Rs.3/- per metric ton to the assessee. If there is any such letter dated 1.4.2004 of the Truck Owners Association, then whether that was the basis for finding of the C.I.T.(A) and the I.T.A.T. then, that is also not apparent from the orders passed by the C.I.T. (A) and the I.T.A.T. - matter remanded back to AO for fresh assessment. - Tax Appeal No. 49 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 21-9-2012 - MRS. JAYA ROY And Prakash Tatia, JJ. For the Appellant : M/s Deepak Roshan, Sr. S.C. (I.T.) Rupa Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent : M/s B. Poddar, Sr. Advocate M.K. Choudh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 27.12.2007, for the Assessment Year 2004-05 found that the assessee received gross receipt of Rs.7,16,09,345/- from M/s Hindalco Industries Limited for transportation of Bauxite under written contract and that was found proved from the T.D.S. Certificate from which T.D.S. of Rs.36,800/- has been deducted under Section 194 (c). The Assessing Officer found that from perusal of the P L A/c, it appears that the assessee has not shown gross receipt of Rs.7,15,69,345/- and the assessee has credited Rs.6,83,669/- under the heading commission of transportation in the P L Account . For the purpose of making fresh assessment, notice under Section 143(2), under Section 142(1) and thereafter so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer has examined the details of the receipt, the details of the payments to the truck owners, the details of the T.D.S. Deducted and the payment to the Government account still has not accepted the commission as the income and estimated the income at the rate 5 % of the gross receipt as income of the appellant, which has no basis at all. Accordingly, the CIT(A) allowed the appeal vide order dated 11.11.2008. Aggrieved against the said order of the CIT(A), the Revenue preferred the appeal being ITA No.199(RAN)/2009. Whereas the assessee preferred the appeal being ITA No.127(RAN)/2009 and also filed a Cross Ojection being C.O. No.82 (RAN)/2009. The Cross Appeals and the Cross Objection all have been dismissed by the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommitted grave error of law by misreading the agreement dated 3.4.2003, and wrongly held that the petitioner is a Commission Agent and got Rs.3/- per metric ton as commission on total goods transported. The said finding is based on no evidence. Therefore, on this count, the order passed by the CIT (A) and confirmed by the I.T.A.T. deserves to be set aside. It is also submitted that the I.T.A.T was under the wrong impression that there was only dispute regarding the allowances of 10 % towards the miscellaneous expenses for transportation and held that the assessee entitled to 20 % of the expenses for the work done by him for earning the above commission. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and we are o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
