TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the party. The assessee explained that the claim of Rs. 43,479 represented 5% discount allowed on sales made to this party aggregating to Rs. 8,69,584. The AO examined partner Hari Shanker of Kamal Agricultural Industries who denied to have received any commission but admitted an amount of Rs. 43,479 received from the assessee @5% on purchases made therefrom. The AO noted that no such discount was evident from the bills of sales of the assessee to this party as also there was no agreement to this effect. He disallowed the claim. The assessee failed before the learned CIT(A). 3. Shri K.P. Bhatnagar, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the assessee submitted that the authorities below misread the facts and, therefore, reached ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the authorities below and submitted that while the assessee had claimed the amount as commission, it was later claimed as discount. He submitted that individual sales bill did not contain any specific amount of discount and necessary entries stood passed at the end of the year with a view to reduce tax liability of the assessee. 5. We have heard both the parties and have also perused the relevant record. In our view, the assessee deserves to succeed in this ground of appeal. There is no denying the fact that assessee has been allowing discount on sales made to this very party right from asst. yr. 1984-85. It is also on record that assessment for asst. yr. 1984-85 and again for 1986-87 stood framed under s. 143(3) and no adverse view was t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k pages 12 to 15 containing details of orders executed by the assessee through M/s Ajanta Udyog as also the certificate filed by Ajanta Udyog confirmed these sales and resultant commission thereon @3%. Therefore, on consideration of relevant facts and circumstances, and on the basis of evidence on record, we do not find any justification for the addition made. Relief Rs. 5,130. 9. The next grievance of the assessee is against the addition of Rs. 88,000 being aggregate of four cash credits as below: . Rs. 1. Indu Aggarwal 8,000 2. Kiran Devi 15,000 3. Urmila Garg 15,000 4. Rama Ind. Corporation 50,000 10. The AO called upon the assessee to explain the natur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er is7th Nov., 1989, and apparently, therefore, these ladies were examined by the AO at the instance of the CIT(A) yet there is no mention about this in the order of the learned CIT(A). Shri Bhatnagar took us through the statements of these three ladies recorded by the AO and pointed out that all of them have confirmed to have advanced the amount and have explained sources thereof and reiterated that the payments were made by them by way of cheques and they are assessed to income-tax. He submitted that nothing more was required to be done by the assessee. In the matter of 4th creditor, namely, Rama Industrial Corporation, the learned AR invited our attention to page 30 of the paper book which is a copy of account of the assessee in the book ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
