9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f law arises on the questions proposed by the Revenue on any of the claims made by the assessee as they are all based on questions of facts and must rest at the level of the Tribunal X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arties (Revenue). Yet another question is in regard to giving benefit to the assessee under section 43B and in relation to addition/deletion made under section 40A(3) read with rule 6DD(j) of the Income-tax Rules. Coming to the question of certain deletion allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in favour of the assessee, the Tribunal while upholding these deletions held that they were properly given to the assessee in the facts of the case. It was held that in the absence of any material, the Income-tax Officer (Assessing Officer) was not justified in making such additions and that the explanation offered should have been accepted in support of the deletion. In fact, it was then accepted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce jurisdiction conferred by section 256(1) of the Act. However, when the assessee claims a deduction in his business income as business expenditure on account of incurring a particular expenditure then such deduction needs a factual inquiry and consideration of the explanation if offered by the assessee in so far as it relates to a particular deduction. It is then for the Assessing Officer to examine as to whether an explanation offered by the assessee is to be accepted so as to give him/them the benefit of deletion from his gross income. The same inquiry can be repeated at the level of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and lastly, to the extent permitted at the level of the Tribunal with a view to find out whether deduction claime ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions of section 43B of the Act in the case of Allied Motors v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677. In view of this categorical finding recorded by the Tribunal in second appeal, it was held that no referable question of law on this issue arises for being answered by this court. We are in agreement with the view of the Tribunal on this issue also and decline to call for the reference. Indeed, when the deduction claimed is in accord with the view taken by the Supreme Court and a categorical finding is also recorded in the hierarchy of appellate jurisdiction by the Appellate Tribunals then there arise no case to again examine the issue in reference. Then comes a deduction falling under section 40A(3) read with rule 6DD(j). In our opinion, even the dedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
