9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the action of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,51,000/- made to the assessee's income on account of discrepancy in the valuation of closing stock? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the action of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,01,537/- made on account of valuation of closing stock being the differences in the valuation of the stock as shown in the stock statement filed with the Bank and one before the Assessing Officer? (3) Whether on the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als) (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"), and, thus, in appeal, it reversed findings of Assessing Officer of addition of Rs. 1,51,000/-. The Assessing Officer took the view that valuation of stock should have been on highest profit rate, but this view taken by Assessing Officer has not been found reasonable and, hence, reversed by CIT (A). The Tribunal has concurred with the view taken by CIT (A) and has confirmed the order passed by CIT (A). This is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by CIT (A) and Tribunal. In absence of any patent illegality or arbitrariness shown therein, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same and answer question no. 1, accordingly, against Revenue. 3. Coming to question no. 2, we find that CIT (A) h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the person concerned admitted to have received the same, we do not find that Tribunal has erred in law in affirming the decision of disallowance of Rs. 4,42,592/-. Moreover, here also, concurrent finding has been recorded by both the authorities below which could not be shown perverse in any manner. Question no. 3 is, therefore, answered against Revenue and in favour of Assessee. 5. Now coming to question no. 4, it is evident from record that a sum of Rs. 17,39,330/- was actually paid towards commission for procuring Government Orders, i.e., the Government Orders received by Assessee for supply. The names and details of parties to whom commission paid was also disclosed before Assessing Officer. CIT(A) has found that it is not the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot been laid out for the purpose of business. Moreover, the nature of expenditure has to be seen from the view point of the assessee and the Assessing Officer has neither the expertise of running a business nor has any specialisation to sit in judgment over the assessee as to whether such an expenditure was incurred for commercial expediency or not. Apart from it, there is no provision to disallow a part of such expenditure on the ground of excessiveness when the expenditure has been found to be genuine." 6. It is not the case of Revenue that amount of commission paid was excessive in comparison to the nature of business. In these circumstances, question no. 4 is also answered against Revenue. 7. In the result, the appeal lacks merits. Di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
