9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers in order to boost the sales of post paid connections due to tough competitions - List of such connections was furnished to the AO – Held that - expenditure are allowed - 445 of 2009 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 19-8-2009 - ADARSH KUMAR GOEL and DAYA CHAUDHARY, JJ. Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Standing Counsel for the Revenue. ORDER 1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") against order dated 31.12.2008 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B', Chandigarh passed in I.T.A. No.754/ Chandi/2008 for the assessment year 2004-05, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- "(i) Whether or not on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n paid, when asked to do so." 2. The assessee deals in electronic items and is distributor of Spice mobile connections. During assessment, the Assessing Officer made additions on account of unsecured loans and other deficiencies including discount debited to P L account. The CIT(A) upheld the plea of the assessee, which order has been affirmed by the Tribunal. As regards unsecured loans, it was observed that the Assessing Officer failed to call the alleged creditors for evidence inspite of request of the assessee. Other deficiencies were also held to have been duly explained. The observations of the Tribunal are as under:- "Admittedly, Spice Company confirmed the position, which is as per the explanation of the assessee. There is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances of the case the learned first appellate authority erred in deleting the addition of Rs.8,08,003/- made on account of disallowance on discount debited to profit and loss account ignoring the fact that assessee failed to produce documentary evidence in the form of any agreement made with the dealer or to furnish the complete addresses of dealer together with the percentage of commission paid. The learned Sr. D.R. took identical arguments as raised in the grounds by further adding that for want of details, the impugned disallowance was rightly made. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee defended the impugned order by contending that all necessary details were furnished before the learned Assessing Officer as well a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
