TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 674X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness. Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rightly reversed the finding of the CIT(A) and noted the fact that the transporters are not in existence has not been repelled by the assessee in the appeal proceedings and the CIT(A) merely accepted the plea of the assessee without any material or evidence on record. We find all these records are self-serving and these records do not dislodge the specific finding of the AO based on Commission issued to the ITO, Cuddappah referred above. Therefore, the assessee having not been able to establish by documents that the finding of the AO was incorrect, we have no hesitation to hold that the order passed by the CIT(A) is utterly perverse. According to the learned counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai 'B' Bench in I.T.A.No.2058/Mds/2006 for the Assessment Year 2001-02. 2. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law vide order dated 25.02.2009: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the appellant is not entitled to the deduction of the freight amounting to ₹ 19,83,445/- and (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the appellant is not entitled to the deduction of the sum of ₹ 11,37,018/- in respect of pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c) Local enquiries revealed that no such persons were doing transport business from the above address and d) Shri. Ramamuni Reddy furnished a letter dated 27.02.2004 to ITO, Cuddappah stating that he was not a partner with the above mentioned firms or persons and had no business transaction. He further confirmed that he had no business transaction with the assessee M/s. Oren Hydro Carbons Pvt.Ltd. 5. The above finding will clearly show that the assessee failed to establish that they had incurred expenses towards freight and transportation. The Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals) -IV, Chennai, (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A) ) reversed the finding of the Assessing Officer based ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incorrect, we have no hesitation to hold that the order passed by the CIT(A) is utterly perverse. 8. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee, the finding of the Tribunal is perverse. We do not agree with said submission as we have already held that the order of the CIT(A) is utterly perverse. 9. Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent/revenue placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2015) 378 ITR 0640, wherein the Supreme Court held that there was no reason to reverse the finding of the fact particularly since nothing has been shown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
