TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2003 in respect of the assessment year 1999-2000. It has been claimed that the following questions of law would arise for the determination of this court: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal was legally right to uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer by applying the provisions of section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act rejecting the books of account where the trading results declared were not found to be correct because of various discrepancies ? As such findings given by the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal are perverse and it is a settled law that on perversity a question of law arises? 2. Whether, on the facts and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was made. It was also noticed by the Assessing Officer that the commission of Rs. 1,48,659 was paid to Shri Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, a close relative of the managing director which was disallowed as the assessee failed to justify its genuine ness. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who, vide order dated October 22, 2002, deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer holding that the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any defects in the books of account and that Shri Vijay Kumar Aggarwal was rendering service in lieu of which he was paid commission. Being not satisfied with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Revenue filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has gone into detail in discussing the evidence and recording conclusion after appreciating the same. On the basis of the evidence it has been concluded by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal that no discrepancy could be found in the maintenance of accounts. It has further been recorded that the Assessing Officer who was present before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) could not point out any such discrepancy in the maintenance of the accounts and that the assessee had given sufficient reasons for various entries. Therefore, this court in exercise of jurisdiction under section 260A of the Act cannot reppreciate the evidence to reach a conclusion other than the one recorded by the Commissioner of Income-t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
