TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant to the notice or even has stopped business, the claim of the assessee on that account cannot be discarded as non-existent. In the case before us, the Revenue has not put forward any other ground, such as, it was not a genuine transaction for other reasons but has simply rejected the claim on the ground as if there was no such transaction.– Expenditure allowed. Regarding payment in cash - the alleged payments being made in cash and the amount involved being Rs. 50,675/- and Rs. 1,00,737/- respectively during the relevant Assessment Year and at the same time, the appellant having failed to produce any of the aforesaid parties except the bills alleged to be raised by those two concerns, the Tribunal below was justified in disbelieving tho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,302/- to M/s. Selvas Photographics. (c) So far as the payments made to M/s. Selvas Photographics are concerned, it appears that those were paid by account payee cheques for the purpose of transaction of business conducted by the appellant. (d) As regards payments made to M/s. Soma Enterprises and M/s. Imprint s-N-Trade those were, however, made by cash. (e) The Assessing Officer gave opportunity to the appellant to produce those three parties for verification of the claim, but it appears that none of them appeared before the Assessing Officer. (f) In such circumstances, the Assessing Officer was of the view that those were fictitious claim. Being dissatisfied, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble before the same and whether the said arbitrary confirmation and/or addition of amounts of Rs. 3,12,302/-, Rs. 50,675/- and Rs. 1,00,737/- respectively is perverse? ( ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal could ignore the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which was order impugned before the Learned Tribunal and which contained the necessary details about the genuineness of the transaction of the petitioner and whether such total go-by of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and on the contrary confirmation of the order of the Assessing Officer was perverse? 3. After hearing Mr. Sen, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, and Mr. Agarw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for his business by way of account payee cheques from a third party and subsequently, three years after the purchase, the said third party does not appear before the Assessing Officer pursuant to the notice or even has stopped business, the claim of the assessee on that account cannot be discarded as non-existent. In the case before us, the Revenue has not put forward any other ground, such as, it was not a genuine transaction for other reasons but has simply rejected the claim on the ground as if there was no such transaction. 5. The transaction having taken place through payment by account payee cheques, such plea is not tenable and in such circumstances, the Tribunal below erred in law in reversing the finding arrived at by the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
