9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber and December, 1978, and in January, 1979. The offer was also accepted on April 11, 1978. However, this contract was cancelled on October 30, 1978, on the ground that the assessee did not require the material at that time. By a letter dated November 4, 1978, the supplier protested against the concellation and on January 10, 1979, an agreement was reached, wherein, the assessee agreed to pay a compensation towards the breach at the rate of Rs. 20 per gram and there was a debit of Rs. 2 lakhs which was sent by a demand draft on March 31, 1979, and the supplier acknowledged it on May 9, 1979. It is also stated that there was another transaction by which the assessee agreed for purchase of goods on import entitlement of the value of Rs. 10 l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow the transmission of money through banking channels and that the assessee had incurred expenditure and there was no evidence contra to the statement of one Zatakia that he withdrew the money from the bank and gave it back to a director of the assessee-company. The Appellate Tribunal found that this issue was not properly considered by marshalling the necessary evidence to test the veracity of the charge because the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had brushed aside the statement of Zatakia as a self-serving statement repudiating the receipt of money. Mr. Zatakia stood to gain as he need not pay tax on it. The Tribunal felt that the statement of Zatakia requires close scrutiny as there were contradictions in his statement and his incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer for fresh disposal as the question whether the payments made by the assessee were genuine and certain aspects on the question regarding the payments were required to be examined. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the evidence of Mr. Zatakia required close scrutiny as the statement made by Mr. Zatakia was conflicting. The Tribunal also felt that the transactions between the assessee and Ashwin Trading Company and Kodiyar Chemicals Corporation Ltd., Bombay, have not been looked into as to whether they received the commission or not. Therefore, according to the Tribunal, the question as to whether the transactions were genuine or not has to be decided and in this view, directed the Income-tax Officer to verify the question as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
