TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee to give such concession. When the assessee by withdrawing the claim did not invite any decision from CIT(A), we wonder under what circumstances, she could have filed appeal against the order of the CIT(A) recording that such ground is not required to be examined on merits. Even independently, the Tribunal has examined the material on record leading to the concession given by the assessee and granted limited relief to the extent on the basis of remand report, it was found that the prescribed claim was not bogus. Thus, despite, the assessee giving up the entire claim of brokerage charges, the Tribunal has granted limited relief to the extent evidence on record favoured the assessee's claim of such payment. No question of law ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal. The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] ( the CIT(A) for short) called for remand report. In the process of making such remand report, the Assessing Officer issued notices to the parties to whom the assessee claimed to have paid brokerage. During such proceedings itself, the assessee conceded before the Assessing Officer that the claim of payment of brokerage charges was not genuine. Her authorized representative, therefore, filed a declaration before the CIT(A) ON 4.9.2013 in which it was stated as under:- Brokerage Commission ₹ 89,19,677/- The Learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax added ₹ 89,19,677/-. The said appeal was heard and Hon'ble CIT(A) 30 has called for the remand report from the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above addition. I have in para no. 8 above already dismissed grounds appeal no. 1 2 and confirmed the addition. 10.2 Grounds of appeal No. 3, 4 5 are against addition of ₹ 12,01,39,630/- on account of purchases. As all the three grounds appeal are on a common issue, they are clubbed together for the purpose of discussion and disposal. The A.O. has reported that during the remand proceedings, verification of parties of purchases to the above extent was once again made and confirmations have been received. In view of said report of A.O., I delete the addition of ₹ 12,01,39,630/- and allow the above grounds of the appeal. 11. In the result, appeal is partly allowed. 5. The assessee, thereupon, filed appeal be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s stated to have been paid had not provided any services to the assessee. That being the case, the assessee had taken conscious decision to withdraw her ground of challenge before the CIT(A). She had written two letters on 4.3.2013 and 29.8.2013 to this effect. 7. Despite such observations, the Tribunal proceeded to give limited relief to the extent of ₹ 27.48 lacs and retained the addition of ₹ 61.71 lacs out of total of ₹ 89.19 lacs. This was on the ground that as per the report of the Assessing Officer upon remand, only sum of ₹ 61.71 lacs represented the bogus brokerage payments. 8. For multiple reasons, this appeal cannot be entertained. Firstly, as noted, during the remand proceedings, the assessee was co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
