TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would not arise. The learned Tribunal does not appear to have made any mistake because the submissions made by the Revenue before the learned Tribunal did not include even a sentence as regards any new evidence relied upon by the assessee before the CIT(A), as would appear from the part of the Tribunal’s order quoted above by us. In that view of the matter, the question is answered by holding that the order of the learned Tribunal is not erroneous on account of omission to consider any alleged violation of sub-rule (2) of rule 46A. - ITA 77 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 28-7-2016 - JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA AND JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Mr. P. K. Bhowmick, Adv. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Adv. Mr. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artmental Representative in his submission submitted that the assessee failed to produce the relevant details to establish the genuineness of the commission allegedly paid by the assessee to the various parties. He further submitted that the payment of commission at the rate of 12.5% to Mr. Khalid J. Al Kubaisi was too high. The assessee failed to give details of the services rendered by the payees. He further submitted that M/s. Cosmos International did not have any other commission received except the receipt of commission from the assessee. The ld. D.R. submited that the ld. CIT(A| allowed the payment of the commission on the premises that the genuineness of the payments could not be doubted. The ld. CIT(A) did not consider the issue of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asked for more time on the ground that the enquiry had not been completed as the A. O. sought some information from the Addl. DIT, New Delhi whose report was awaited. The enquiry at New Delhi appeared to be not in terms of the report directed by my letter dt. 13.3.2007. However, another letter was sent to the A.O. on 5.6.2007 directing him to furnish the report u/s 250(4) of the Act and response under Rule 46(A) of IT Rules. On 25.07.2007 the Assessing Officer gave a report which he described as an interim report and till date no final report has been received nor any explanation offered as to why there had to be an interim report and what remained to be reported in the final report. It would appear from the observations made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
