9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1095X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Agarwal, Advocate represented on behalf of the assessee. ITA No. 686/Kol/2011 A.Y 2008-09 (by the revenue) 3. In this appeal, the revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as in facts by allowing the relief of disallowance of Rs.80,84,781/- made by AO by holding that provision of Section 172 is applicable and no deduction u/s. 194C or 195 is required to be made leading to non application of provision of Section 40(a)(ia). 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as in facts by allowing the relief of disallowance of Rs.1,31,375/- made by AO under the head purchase of lac and Shellac. 3. That the ld. CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TDS was liable to be deducted u/s. 194C or 195 of the Act. It was the submission that the order of the learned CIT(A) was liable to be reversed. 6. In reply, the learned AR for the assessee drew our attention to the pages 85-108 of the APB [assessee's paper book] and submitted that all the agents have submitted the certificates, wherein it has been mentioned that the returns have been filed by the agents u/s. 172 of the Act on behalf of the principal. He further drew our attention to pages 14-23 of the APB, which were the details of the shipping companies and their agents. He further drew our attention to the order of the learned CIT(A), wherein the learned CIT(A) has categorically given a finding that the AO himself has mentioned the natu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llac, it was submitted by the learned Sr. DR that these were local purchases and the AO has disallowed 1% of the purchases by holding that inflation of the local purchases could not be ruled out. It was the further submission that the learned CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance by holding that the AO has not done any enquiry on the sellers in respect of the estimated disallowance. It was the submission that the order of the learned CIT(A) was liable to be reversed. 9. In reply, the learned AR for the assessee submitted that in the absence of any specific defects no estimated disallowance was liable to be made. He has vehemently supported the order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the same. 10. We have considered the rival submissions. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned AR for the assessee has submitted that the issue was squarely covered by the CBDT Circular No. 786 dated 07-07-2000 as also Circular no. 23 dated 23-7-1969, wherein it has been clarified that where the non-resident agent operates outside India, no part of his income arises in India. The payments made to said non-resident, Shri Omar Chirabi are not liable to be tax in India. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.E India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd v. CIT reported in 234 CTR 153 (SC). He has vehemently supported the order of the learned CIT(A). 13. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the AO has accepted that Shri Omar Chi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccount of supervision charges, export expenses, packing expenses, lorry hire charges and motor car and telephone expenses. It is noticed that all the disallowance are made on estimate basis and no specific defect has been pointed out by the AO. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the deletion made by the learned CIT(A) on this issue is on a right footing and does not call for any interference. This ground of the revenue's appeal is also dismissed. 17. The above revenue's appeal being ITA No. 686/Kol/2011 for the assessment year 2008-09 is dismissed as stated above. C.O No. 30/Kol/2011 [in ITA No. 686/Kol/11] A.Y 2008-09 (by the assessee) 18. In this cross objection, the assessee has raised the following effective ground :- &nb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. The learned AR for the assessee also submitted that the learned CIT(Appeals) has not granted any relief to the assessee. It was the submission that disallowance of 50% was excessive. 20. In reply, the learned Sr. DR has vehemently supported the orders of the AO and the learned CIT(A). It was the submission that assessee's husband was also promoting his own business and consequently, 50% disallowance was rightly made by the AO. 21. We have considered the rival submissions As the assessee has not been able to place any evidence before us to show that foreign travel by Shri Sushil Kumar Saraf (husband of the assessee) was exclusively for the business purpose of the assessee, we are of the view that the disallowance of 50% as made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
