TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee to produce all relevant evidence to show that the sum of ₹ 11 crores was incurred by the assessee for appropriate reasons. This question of fact, we are inclined to think, may be enquired into further for the purpose of examining the grievance of the assessee, if any. For that limited purpose, the matter is remanded to the assessing officer. He shall permit the assessee to adduce such evidence as the assessee wants to rely upon and shall consider the matter in accordance with law. - IT APPEAL NO. 164 OF 2009 - - - Dated:- 9-2-2015 - Girish Chandra Gupta And Arindam Sinha, JJ. For the Appearing Parties : R.N. Bajoria, Sr. Adv. A. Gupta and R. Sinha, Advs. ORDER 1. The Court : The assessing officer i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/-, ₹ 1,00,00,000/- and ₹ 2,00,00,000/- as per Sl. No. 36, 37 and 38 at pages 177 of the paper book, but the only narration given is being amount paid as additional manpower supply fees payable to S.R. Batliboi Co. . No further details have been given to justify as to whether the said payment has been made by the assessee to its sister concern S.R. Batliboi Co. wholly and necessarily for business purposes. We observe that the A.O. has also stated in the assessment order that the assessee failed to correlate the payment of such expenses to its sister concern S. R. Batliboi Co. The A.O. has also observed that the assessee could not explain the business expediency of incurring such expenses at this abnormal rate. The Hon&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es below by restricting the disallowance of 10% of ₹ 11,00,00,000/-, which comes to ₹ 1,10,00,000/- as against ₹ 1,26,90,998/- made by the A.O. and the entire amount deleted by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the Ground No.4 of the appeal taken by the Department is allowed in part by restricting the disallowance to ₹ 1,10,00,000/-out of the payment of ₹ 11,00,00,000/- made by the assessee to its sister concern S.R. Batliboi Co. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present appeal was filed. The appeal was admitted on 12th August, 2009 and the following questions of law were framed: (i) Whether order of the tribunal, disallowing ₹ 1,10,00,000/- out of the payment made to S.R. Batliboi and Company f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in substance means that better remains behind. What is the better that remained behind? Better in this case were the pieces of evidence which contained the particulars of services rendered and rates applied thereto on the basis whereof the sum of ₹ 11 crores was calculated. Those were the pieces of primary evidence which also was the best evidence available with the assessee which should have been adduced to show that the assessee had in fact incurred the sum of ₹ 11 crores for business expediency. The assessee did not do any such thing nor even any attempt was made to do so. Naturally, the assessing officer disallowed the expenditure and the Tribunal upheld it, if we may say so correctly. Mr. Bajoria, learned senior advocate, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
