2021 (4) TMI 5

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he case and material on record. 2. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is not justified in deciding the appeal against the appellant without affording sufficient opportunity of being heard. Though the appellant could not attend the appeal hearings due to other pressing pre-occupations, his subsequent attempts to meet the CIT(A) on couple of occasions to make oral/written submissions failed due to pre-occupation of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals). The CIT(A) could have been more liberal in affording another opportunity before deciding the appeal ex-parte. 3. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of selling expenses' amounting to Rs. 25,61,387/- representing discount allowed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fficer noticed that assessee has claimed huge expenses under the head other expenses and hence, called upon the assessee to file necessary details of expenditure debited under the head 'other expenses'. In response, the assessee has filed details of expenses including selling expenses, discounts allowed to customers. The Assessing Officer on the basis details filed by the assessee was of the opinion that expenditure debited under the head discount allowed to customers is not supported by necessary evidences. The Assessing Officer further observed that as per Bureau of Indian Standards, a fixed rate has been specified per piece of jewellery certified by the assessee and hence, question of allowing discount to the customers does not a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re was claimed and allowed in earlier years and hence, without there being any change in facts, no disallowance can be made on discount allowed to customers. The AR further submitted that assessee has filed all evidences to prove the expenses, but the authorities below have ignored all evidences filed by the assessee. Therefore, the issue may be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer to give one more opportunity to the assessee to explain its case. The AR further submitted that as regards recomputation of long term capital gain, it was the case of the assessee before the Assessing Officer that when there is a difference in sale consideration recorded in registered sale deed and value determined for the purpose of payment of stamp du .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X