9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t expenses amounting toRs.12,85,891/-. 3. That the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed disallowance of freight and cartage expenses amounting to Rs.47965/- u/s 40(a)(ia) 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal before the final hearing. 3. Ground No. 1 4 are general in nature, hence needs no adjudication. 4. In Ground No.2, the assessee contended that ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of rebate and trade discount expenses amounting to Rs.12,85,891/-. In the course of present appellate proceedings, ld. AR contended that 70% of total sales are made to the sister concerns and hence rebate and discounts were allowable in this case. Ld. AR referred to para 2.7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate. 2.8 In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the special rebate given by the assessee firm amounting toRs.12,85,891/- over and above the normal rebate of Rs.44,32,560/- is considered as excessive. It is held that this amount has been paid for nonbusiness and extra commercial considerations. The assessee has not brought on record that there was any special occasion or compelling circumstance, which required payment of special rebate in addition to the normal rebate. As discussed above in detail, the assessee has been selling the goods at the same rate to all its customers. It is only M/s ASR Co., Solan, a sister concern of the assessee firm, to whom such huge rebate and discount has been given. Since M/s ASR Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cerns was accepted and it was only the excessive or unreasonable portion which was disallowed. The concept of business expediency would be negated if there is no material/evidence to show why and how one party was singled out for huge discounts. If the appellant was commercially expedient, he would have given similar rebates and discounts to all the customers to encourage them to pick up more stocks. 10. The appellant relied upon the case of CIT V Siya Ram Garg, HUF, ITAO No.679 of 2010 dated 14.12.2010 in which the Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench held as under : 15. On this issue, we find that indeed the details filed by the assessee showed that its sister concerns were being taxed at the same rate in which the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er authorities that goods were sold to sister concern namely M/s ASR Co. and other parties at the same rate and there was no variation in the rate of goods supplied to various parties. This factum was confronted to the assessee duly supported by the sale bills on 13.11.2009 by the AO, while examining the books of account. The assessee failed to establish his case of giving a special rebate of Rs.12,85,891/- to the sister concern. The AO gave his categorical finding in the matter, as reproduced in the order of CIT(A). The assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal, in the case of M/s Triveni Silk Mills V ITO as rendered in ITA No. 791/Chd/2011 dated 22.09.2011 to support his contentions. However, a careful perusal of the deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
