9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of law was framed by this Court for consideration: "Was the ITAT right in disallowing sum of Rs.4,02,600/- incurred towards transportation charges ? 3. The background facts are that the Assessee derives its income from sale of foreign liquor. Its return for the AY in question was picked up for scrutiny. In the assessment order dated 30th March, 2001, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the Assessee had received credit notes totaling to Rs.4,91,350/- from M/s. Raman Distilleries Ltd. (RDL). As against this, the Assessee showed that it had received from RDL a total commission in the form of credit notes of Rs.88,750/-. Thus, the AO concluded that the Assessee had suppressed commission amounting to Rs.4,02,600/- i.e. Rs.4,91,350/- (-) min ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorized representative (AR) were not considered by the ITAT. By an order dated 27th April, 2009 the ITAT recalled its earlier order dated 2nd September, 2008. 8. Thereafter the appeal was again heard by the ITAT and disposed of by the impugned order dated 27th August, 2009. Specific to the disallowance of the sum of Rs.4,02,600/- towards transportation charges, the ITAT observed that the Assessee had not produced any agreement with M/s. RDL to demonstrate that under an arrangement it had to incur the relevant expenditure and later claimed reimbursement. The ITAT observed that the queries posed to the AR were not satisfactorily answered. The materials produced by the Assessee did not sufficiently explain the transaction in question and, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time of delivery of stocks. It could have been possible for the AO to have summoned the Area Sales Executive of BDA Limited, who issued the above letter. For some reason, that was not done. The ITAT could have also adopted the approach earlier adopted by it in its order dated 2nd September, 2008 viz., sending the matter back to the AO for a fresh verification. Even that was somehow given up when the ITAT again passed the subsequent order after recall of the earlier order. 13. In the circumstances, the Court is of the view that the disallowance of Rs.4,02,600/- claimed by the Appellant towards transportation charges was not justified. The question is accordingly answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the Assessee and against the Depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
