TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the expenditure falls under Section 37(1) - Claim of the assessee under this head is not fully verifiable in nature. Tribunal vide impugned order negatived the assessee s contention on the ground that because the turnover has increased in the subsequent year therefore higher rate of discount is to be allowed cannot be accepted because the discount and rebate is at percentage basis and not on the basis of the turnover. Books of accounts of the assessee as well as the material produced by the assessee was not disputed by the AO - merely because there was variations in the previous and subsequent year with regard to the discount and rebates, AO should not have disallowed the claim of the appellant with regard to the discount and rebates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return of income on 01.11.2004 for the Assessment year 2004-05 declaring income of ₹ 42,57,690/-. The case of the appellant was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer also issued statutory notice to the appellant and called for the details. The Assessing Officer after verifying the books of accounts, arbitrarily disallowed certain expenditure incurred by the appellant on ad-hoc basis and passed an order of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act on 30.11.2006 determining the total income of the appellant as ₹ 76,05,020/- 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), after considering the written submissions filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purpose of business. In support of his submission, the learned Senior counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sassoon J. David and Co. Pvt. Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay, reported in 118 ITR 261 (SC) and the another decision in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and another, reported in (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the burden was on the assessee to prove that it had incurred business expenditure. It is further submitted that no material was produced with regard to the amount incurred by the appellant with regard to discounts and rebates and therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome Tax (Appeals) has held that the burden of proof lies on the assessee in order to claim that the expenditure falls under Section 37(1) of the Act. Therefore, it has been further held that the claim of the assessee under this head is not fully verifiable in nature. The Tribunal vide impugned order negatived the assessee s contention on the ground that because the turnover has increased in the subsequent year therefore higher rate of discount is to be allowed cannot be accepted because the discount and rebate is at percentage basis and not on the basis of the turnover. 9. It is pertinent to mention here that the books of accounts of the assessee as well as the material produced by the assessee was not disputed by the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
