9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT sustained addition - Tribunal deleted addition due to lack of evidence - Held that:- Assessee made payment of commission through account payee cheques for sales canvassed by the party and also in consideration of the collection recovered from purchaser. Payments cannot be unreasonable particularly when M/s. Shree Shantinath Silk Industries is not related to the assessee and so even disallowance made by CIT(A) is not proper - The issue is essentially based on facts - no question of law arises - Decided against revenue. - Tax Appeal No. 688 of 2010 & 689 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 22-4-2013 - Akil Kureshi And Sonia Gokani,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhir M. Mehta, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Saurabh Soparkar, SR. Adv. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d therefore, such purchases were held to be bogus. When it was challenged before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) was of the opinion that they could not be held bogus as the corresponding sales had been effected by the respondent in the next year. In subsequent year also and in the past, such purchases were made which were never questioned. When challenged before the Tribunal on the basis of the facts presented before us, it held that these purchases could not be held bogus by holding thus: 13. We have considered the rival submissions and the materials placed on record. The purchases are supported by bills, entries in the books of account, payment by cheque and quantitative details. Assessing Officer did not find any inflation in purchase price or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade through the cheques, was of the opinion that such addition could not be sustained. Issue, essentially and pre-dominantly based on facts, requires no consideration as no question of law arises. 5. The second question pertains to brokerage commission of Rs. 72,37,808/- disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer disallowed the commission on the ground that M/s. Shree Shantinath Silk Industries did not maintain its record and its name did not appear on sale bill. When it was challenged before the CIT(A) it was of the opinion that the only one party had been examined by the Assessing Officer and the person examined for and on behalf of such party in fact was not dealing with sales, and therefore, would not be having any kno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
