TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Neeraj Goel and late Shri B.M. Goel and whether the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal are perverse ? 2. The assessee is an exporter of Hand-tools. Return declaring income of ₹ 3,82,990 was filed by the assessee on 31-8-1987. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee claimed to have paid an amount of ₹ 3,33,652 to Shri Neeraj Goel, Proprietor of M/s. N.K. Rubber Industries, Jalandhar. Similarly, it was also found that the assessee had paid two cheques of ₹ 4,98,933 and ₹ 2,11,096 to M/s. Punjab Rubber Allied Industries, a proprietary concern of Shri B.M. Goel, who happened to be the father of Shri Neeraj Goel. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n allowed or paid to a dealer. It does not fall within the mischief of section 37(3A) of the Act. (p. 648) 5. Only question is to be decided whether finding of the Tribunal that commission paid was genuine business expenditure, was perverse. 6. Finding recorded by the Tribunal is as under :- 6. We have considered the rival submissions, Sh. B.M. Goel Prop. M/s. Punjab Rubber and Allied Industries was an established person in the export trade and he himself was carrying on business at a large scale, as noted by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.5 of the impugned order Sh. B.M. Goel has declared a gross profit of ₹ 10,60,942 in respect of his own business over and above the commission income of ₹ 7,10,029 received by him from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en paid to S/Sh. Neeraj Goel and B.M. Goel. 7. In view of the matter, we do not have any hesitation in upholding the order of Ld. CIT(A) holding that the commission paid the by assessee to Sh. Neeraj Goel and Late Sh. B.M. Goel was a genuine business expenditure and the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the impugned addition. 7. No material which may not have been taken into account by the Tribunal has been indicated nor it is shown that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is vitiated by misreading or by taking into account non-existent material. 8. We are unable to hold that the findings recorded by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal are perverse. 9. Question is, accordingly, answered against the revenue and in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
