9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maran, for the appellant. A. Thiagarajan for the respondent. JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was made by K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN J. - The assessee's assessment order in respect of the assessment year 1975-76 has been revised more than once in order to give effect to the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and Appellate Tribunal and also further modified on rectification of the mistakes. The amount claimed as a deduction in a sum of Rs.3,00,034/- on account of commission paid to one P. M. Traders was rejected. The assessee claimed that the commissions were paid for sale of wood pulp and purchase of caustic soda from National Rayon Corporation Limited. The Assessing Officer verified the assessment records of both r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l appearing for the revenue vehemently contended that the reasoning given by the assessing officer, which is confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) are unassailable reasons. The other fact that the National Rayon Corporation has given a statement that no middle men were engaged by them in the transaction would also go to prove the bogus claim of the assessee that finding would not have been reversed by the Tribunal. 3. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Company, which is under liquidation, has submitted that the Tribunal has passed an order after taking note of the statement given by the person to whom the commission has been given. The Tribunal further taken into consideration of the fact t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition to that, one more factor needs to be stated is that in respect of the assessment year, when the matter was originally carried to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal after taking into consideration of the submission formed an opinion that the matter requires fresh investigation on the ground that as per the records, the partnership deed of the P. M. Traders executed in April 1986 was to take effect from 1.1.1984, which was not taken into account by the Income Tax Officer, who had seen the document. In addition to that, the assessing officer has not considered the letter dated 31.12.1975 submitted by the P. M. Traders to the effect that they did receive the commission from the assessee and verified the same with the P. M. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irection to verify with the letter dated 31.12.1975 by which the P. M. Traders has accepted that they did receive the commission from the assessee. On the other hand, much reliance has been placed by the authorities below on the statement given by one of the officers of the National Rayon Commission. 9. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances of the case, and with particular reference to the Tribunal Order, which has extracted the orders made by the Tribunal in respect of the assessee's case in the subsequent years to the effect that the claim of the assessee in regard to payment of commission to P. M. Traders deserves to be upheld, the further factual position as to the non-verification of the letter dated 13.12.1975 issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
