TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 1078X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). Addition under section 40(a)(ia) the Tribunal noted that under the Finance Act, 2010, the section was retrospectively amended with effect from 01-04-2005. As provided that the tax to be deducted at source in respect of any interest, commission, etc. was required to be paid before the date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139. As the assessee had deducted the tax during the last month of previous years and the same was deposited to the credit of the Government in the month of May, 2005, i.e. before the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act, the expenses relating to the commission paid were allowable. Tribunal recorded its confirming findings on the basis of relevant material, which were proper and re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal No.606 of 2011. 2. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Pranav G. Desai appearing for the appellant-Department in both these appeals. 3. The assessee has been engaged in the trade of tractors and spares. He filed his return of income of the assessment year 2005-06 declaring his income. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed firstly that the assessee had debited ₹ 2,45,586/- towards discount expenses in the profit and loss account. The discount was shown in respect of sales of tractors. According to the Assessing Officer that expenditure was on very high scale and not genuine. He, therefore, disallowed discount expenses of ₹ 22,47,086/-. Secondly, the assessee had shown unsecured ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case to the Assessing Officer directing him to cross-examine the parties again and upon their cross-examination being done, all the six parties in their statements duly confirmed the amounts of discount received by them. The CIT(A) concluded that the Assessing Officer was not right in disallowing the discount expenditure. 3.3 With regard to the addition of unexplained cash credit, the CIT(A) held that the appellant had furnished copies of accounts, copies of bank statements and copies of income-tax returns of all the depositors, and therefore, the identity of the parties were established. The CIT(A) accordingly deleted the addition of the amount in respect of cash credit. As far as the addition made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etc. was required to be paid before the date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139. As the assessee had deducted the tax during the last month of previous years and the same was deposited to the credit of the Government in the month of May, 2005, i.e. before the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act, the expenses relating to the commission paid were allowable. 6. From the above, it is clear that the Tribunal recorded its confirming findings on the basis of relevant material, which were proper and reasonable. In the circumstances, none of the four questions raised any substantial question of law to be considered by this Court. 7. Both the Tax Appeals are devoid of merits and they are dismissed. - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
