9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue raised in this ground of appeal is not covered by the said decision. 2. The relevant material facts are like this. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that while the assessee has shown commission income of Rs. 1,96,27,793, it does not include Rs. 42,87,133 which is said to represent rebate allowed against the commission received. The Assessing Officer further noted that "from the return of income, it was found that the assessee has claimed TDS credit of Rs. 13,09,082 against the commission and the TDS is deducted @5.6%". It was noted that the "the corresponding amount of commission comes to Rs. 2,33,76,464" and then he inferred as follows: ........It means that the assessee has not offered the ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowance by the virtue of section 199 when in fact the commission received by the assessee is at a lesser figure". These contentions were upheld by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) held that the credit notes for rebate are "genuine in nature" and "the plea that appellant has taken credit of these TDS certificates under section 199 of the Income Tax Act and there is a mismatch between the income offered and TDS credit taken by the appellant" is untenable. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied by the stand so taken by the CIT(A) and he carried the matter in appeal before this Tribunal on the following grounds: (a) The Ld CIT(A), on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 42,87,133 made b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in this case. It is submitted that Varsha Salunke decision dealt with the timing issue of income, whereas the case before deals with a situation in which income was not offered to tax in the subsequent year also, and, therefore, timing issue does not arise at all. 6. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered factual matrix of the case as also the applicable legal position. 7. We have noted that when this appeal had come up for hearing, it was an agreed position between the parties that so far as the addition in respect of commission is concerned, the said issue is covered by Smt. Varsha G. Salunke decision (supra). Learned Departmental Representative does not dispute that fact even today, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd not essentially confined to the situations in which timing dispute is the issue. A judicial precedent may lay down propositions which may have application in the same set of facts, or even the propositions which travel much beyond those facts and are of somewhat general applications. To the extent we have applied the Smt. Varsha G. Salunke decision (supra), we are of the view that it falls in the latter category. It is not even disputed that, in the course of original hearing, no arguments were advanced on factual aspects or on distinguishing features. Maybe, someone could have made out a case at that stage, as has been made out very aggressively today, but then it is too late in the day to salvage the situation. By no stretch of logic, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
