TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid to Blue Chip Co. as the expenditure was wholly and exclusively incurred for the purposes of business. 2.3. That while confirming the addition, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (C) has relied on irrelevant considerations. 3. That learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (C) has erred in disallowing Rs. 2 lakhs paid to Corporate Management Division of United Breweries Ltd. ignoring the facts and the submissions made before her in support of the said claim. 4. That learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (C) has erred in disallowing Rs. 2,39,550 being the service charges paid to Bombay Brewery Ltd. in spite of the fact that sufficient evidence had been led in support of the said claim. 5. That learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (C) has erred in confirming levy of interest under section 217(1A) of the Income-tax Act. 6. That learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (C) has erred in not allowing triple shift allowance on the machinery involved in the production of beer ignoring the past history of the case and the fact that beer manufacturing is a continuous process and the machinery is run for all three shifts and the appellant wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the tune of Rs. 1.70 crores. After take over, the company made a cash profit of Rs. 32.95 lakhs for the first time in the year 1982-83. Brought forward losses were wiped out in the year 1983-84 and thereafter the company never looked back. It was submitted that this turn around in the affairs of the company was on account of management acumen of the board of directors, who effectively supervised the working of the company. It was submitted that in the assessment year under consideration, the chief executive was directly reporting to the board of directors. It was submitted that in the extraordinary general meeting of the company convened on July 31, 1985, a resolution was passed to the effect that the company's directors, other than the director nominated by the financial institutions, be paid every year with effect from July 1, 1984, a commission equal to three per cent. of the net profits of the company for that year, which amount they may apportion amongst themselves in any manner they deem fit, in addition to the sitting fee of Rs. 250 payable to each director for every meeting of the board. It was submitted that it was pursuant to this special resolution that the board of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... copies of assessment orders of Smt. Mallya for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88, wherein the assessed income was Rs. 8,27,850 and Rs. 47,35,930, respectively. Sh. Agarwal, however, was fair enough to concede that payment of commission/remuneration is to be governed by the provisions of section 40(c)/40A(5) and the entire commission payment to Mrs. Mallya will not be allowable. Sh. Agarwal has furnished a copy of the order dated January 20, 1992, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the case of Herbertsons Ltd., another group company, for the assessment year 1987-88, wherein similar commission paid to Mrs. Mallya was directed to be allowed, subject to the restrictions imposed under section 40(c). Sh. Agarwal, however, conceded that in the assessment year 1986-87, similar commission was disallowed by the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the order was upheld by the Tribunal. It was submitted that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the action of the Departmental authorities in disallowing the commission on the ground that Mrs. Mallya was married to Mr. Vijay Mallya on February 24, 1985, and the accounting year of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -company to Mrs. Samira Mallya, read as under: "Resolution dated June 27, 1985: Resolved that an extraordinary general meeting of the company may be convened on July 31, 1985, at 11 a.m. at the registered office of the company, to pass the following resolution with or without modification- 'Resolved that the company's directors, other than the directors nominated by the financial institutions, be paid every year with effect from July 1, 1984, a commission equal to three per cent. of the net profits of the company for that year, which amount they may apportion among themselves in any manner they deem fit, in addition to the sitting fee of Rs. 250 payable to each director for every meeting of the board or any committee thereof attended by him/her, and that this resolution shall remain in force till June 30, 1989.' Resolution dated July 31, 1985: Resolved that the company's directors, other than the directors nominated by the financial institutions, be paid every year with effect from July 1, 1984, a commission equal to three per cent. of the net profits of the company for that year, which amount they may apportion among themselves in any manner they deem fit, in additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order. Sh. Agarwal submitted that the assessee-company's branch at Faridabad was earlier handling the sale of IMFL manufactured by McDowell and Herbertsons. It was submitted that McDowell and Co. Ltd., vide their letter dated May 15, 1985, brought to the notice of the assessee-company regarding unsatisfactory sales of various McDowell products through the assessee's depot at Faridabad. McDowell and Co. Ltd. brought to the notice of the assessee that they wanted to find distributors who would be prepared to market only and exclusively their product and not concentrate on products of their competitors. McDowell and Co. Ltd. also pointed out that they wanted to appoint a new licensee who would undertake to deal with their product exclusively and would be responsible for giving adequate credit facility in the market and be ultimately responsible for all outstandings and bad debts, if any, Sh. Agarwal submitted that on receipt of this letter, the assessee felt the necessity of appointing Blue Chip and Co. as its C F agent at Faridabad and it entered into an agreement with the said firm on June 25, 1985, for sale of McDowell products at Faridabad depot and made a del credere arrange ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntinued, due to changed market conditions, and from the accounting year 1989-90, McDowell and Co. had totally withdrawn the agency from the assessee-company and given it to third party at Faridabad. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sassoon J. David and Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 261. The learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). He read out extensively from the orders of the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and submitted that the whole arrangement for making payment of C F handling charges amounting to Rs. 10,45,894 by the assessee to Blue Chip and Co. was a bogus and sham transaction. It was submitted that the assessee-company, prior to its agreement with Blue Chip and Co., has employed eight members of the staff at its Faridabad depot to handle the products of McDowell as well as Herbertson and even after handling of McDowell products was given to Blue Chip and Co., staff strength remained the same. It was submitted that sales in the year under consideration of the products of Herbertson were less than half of the preceding year and yet t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduct exclusively, that is the pre-condition for appointment was that wholesaler who was dealing in other competitive brands, will not be given distributorship of McDowell products. The assessee took up the matter with McDowell and Co. and requested it that it must be retained in one capacity or the other as a wholesaler licencee for the products manufactured by McDowell and Co. The assessee, it appears, was also concerned with extending credit facilities to L-II vendor, where chances of bad debt are more, as ownership of the vends may change with reauction of vends in subsequent year. It was under these circumstances and after tripartite discussion between McDowell and Co., the assessee and Sh. Birender Pal Singh, it was agreed that the assessee should open an independent agency, to look after the products of McDowell and that agency will be wholly responsible for the sale and marketing of McDowell product and also for the bad debt in the market. Pursuant to the above discussion, it appears, the assessee contacted Sh. Birender Pal Singh, who was handling beer sale of the assessee for the last 22 years and was a well-known figure in liquor trade and was dealing with the products m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order, whereas the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has adjudicated upon it at pages 18 to 2 i of the impugned order. Sh. Agarwal submitted that the assessee is one of the companies of the UBG and the main company of the group is United Breweries Ltd. UBL started a CMD from July 1, 1976, to render various services through various group agencies. Prior to establishment of this CMD, such division was managed by Herbertson Ltd., Bombay, and this consists of various departments, like corporate personnel and administration, finance, planning and co-ordination, public affairs and vehicle department. For rendering the services to various subsidiary companies, debit notes are raised at the end of the accounting year on the basis of time taken by each individual subsidiary company whereby the share of expenses allocable to the subsidiary is charged. In the accounts of UB Ltd., expenditure incurred is shown and recoveries made are also reflected in the books of account. It was submitted that as far as the assessee is concerned, payment of Rs. 2 lakhs has been made by it to UB Ltd., on the basis of a debit note raised by UBL, on the basis of time spent by the CMD on the affairs of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count of UBL are audited and so also that of the assessee. The audit is not only under the Companies Act but also under the Income-tax Act. No adverse material or note or qualification in respect of any professional is found so as to justify any disallowance. Sh. Agarwal submitted that since disallowance, on the basis of rule 6D, section 37 and entertainment expenditure, etc., has been made and added in the assessment of UBL, out of total expenditure of Rs. 1,76,47,788, no further disallowance can be made in the assessment of the assessee-company. "We, however, are not inclined to accept this argument because the expenditure is incurred for all entities under UBG, who have joined together to utilise the services of CMD and, therefore, allocation of expenditure also has to be on the basis of each expenditure incurred as such and, therefore, in each individual assessment of group company, appropriate disallowance is required to be made on the basis of the statutory provision. Similar is the view of the Calcutta Bench, referred supra. We direct accordingly. This ground is partly allowed. The Assessing Officer may call for details of disallowance made in the hands of the UBL and make p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 87, the Tribunal was pleased to allow claim of the assessee regarding addition of Rs. 10,32,168. Accordingly, it was submitted that the necessary relief be allowed to the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the authorities below. We have considered the rival submissions. The issue with regard to disallowance made under section 43B is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677, wherein it has approved the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Chandulal Venichand [1994] 209 ITR 7 and of the Patna High Court in the case of Jamshedpur Molar Accessories Stores v. Union of India [1991] 189 ITR 70 and has overruled the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sanghi Motors v. Union of India [1991] 187 ITR 703. The Assessing Officer will call necessary information from the assessee with regard to the payment of liability disallowable under section 43B and readjudicate the issue on the merits, in the light of the aforesaid decision of the apex court. Coming to the Revenue's appeal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firm, Blue Chip and Co., were not found available on the addresses given; the staff strength before and after the agreement with Blue Chip and Co. remained the same, i.e., eight persons, when sales of Herbertson was considerably low, i.e., less than half of the preceding year; and there is sound force in the plea of the learned Departmental Representative that no prudent businessman would keep the same strength of the staff, if sales get reduced-less than half from earlier and this argument gets established that, in fact, whole of the staff of the assessee-firm in that area was looking after the business of McDowell Co. and practically there was no arrangement of C F handling with Blue Chip Co. The plea of the assessee about Herbertson being competitor of McDowell Co., gets defeated, as both are of same group, i.e., UBG and holding company UBG has interest in both McDowell as well as Herbertson; at no stage the assessee has even tried to establish about existence of so-called ladies partners; neither sufficient evidence has been adduced to establish that two companies. of same group are in competition. Other relevant factor of non-function of the so-called firm Blue Chip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee. The ground succeeds for statistics. I hold and direct accordingly. ORDER OF REFERENCE TO THIRD MEMBER On a difference of opinion between the Members who heard these appeals, the following points of difference are referred to the hon'ble President for the opinion of the third Member: "1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirming the addition of Rs. 4,46,667 should be partly upheld as held by the Accountant Member or the addition should be confirmed in its entirety as held by the Judicial Member? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 10,45,000 should be deleted as held by the Accountant Member or the addition should be confirmed as held by the Judicial Member? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance of Rs. 2 lakhs should be partly upheld as held by the Accountant Member or the disallowance should be confirmed in its entirety as held by the Judicial Member? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ground relating to the deletion of addition of Rs. 11,03,550 in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Industries, which is the holding company vis-a-vis the assessee-company. It may be mentioned that Mr. Vijay Mallya is also the chairman of the board of directors of the assessee-company. Vide order-sheet entry the assessee was asked to adduce evidence in support of the services rendered by Mrs. Samira Mallya and a communication was also addressed by the Assessing Officer vide letter dated March 6, 1990. In response to the aforesaid, the assessee filed a written reply dated March 8, 1990, contending that it had already given a note earlier in respect of the claim and over and above what had been stated therein it had no further explanation to offer. At page 2 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has extracted the contents of his letter dated March 6, 1990, and to summarise these, the assessee had offered an explanation to the effect that the services of Mrs. Samira Mallya had been utilised to propagate the beer manufactured by the company and for this purpose she contacted various five star hotels and attended social get-together. It is also seen that the assessee categorically accepted that it had no record of Mrs. Samira Mallya visiting the places aforesaid in promoting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Member dissented with the view taken by the learned Accountant Member taking note initially of the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1986-87 which had confirmed a similar disallowance and thereafter observing that the plea taken by the assessee's counsel was of a general nature and there was no documentary or any other evidence to show that Mrs. Mallya had been instrumental or connected with the activities of the company which resulted in boosting the sales. The learned Judicial Member further observed that the resolutions passed by the board of directors agreeing to pass on the commission received by them to the lady did not give sufficient reason for doing so. He ultimately held that the payment was not for business considerations and, therefore, not to be allowed. Learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the arguments advanced before the Division Bench accepting at the outset that the claim had been rejected by the Tribunal in the assessment year 1986-87. He, however, hastened to add that the facts were slightly distinguishable in the year under consideration as had been argued before the Division Bench and as noted by the learned Accountant Member at page 5 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in the light of the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1986-87. I have to categorically hold that there is no change in the facts in between the two assessment years. A reference to the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1986-87 shows that absolutely identical arguments were advanced by the assessee's counsel and although the actual facts and events came up towards the fag end of the previous year, the Tribunal took note of all the three resolutions which find mention in the order of the learned accountant Member. This is what the Tribunal had to say in para. 6 of its order for the assessment year 1986-87: "6. We have considered the rival contentions and we are unable to agree with learned counsel that the commission was paid for business consideration. The assessee had been taking the stand right from the beginning that the commission was paid to Mrs. Mallya for her services. As already seen, Mrs. Mallya was married to Mr. Vijay Mallya, chairman and director, in the month of February, 1985. There is neither any letter of appointment of Mrs. Mallya as a director (except a mention in the annual report) or any agreement as per which any commission was req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disallowed. Ground No. 1 fails." As already noted by me earlier, even during the year under appeal, the assessee was asked to produce the lady and adduce necessary evidence to support the stand that services had been rendered but none of these was complied with. The learned Accountant Member in his order has not discussed the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1986-87 although in the earlier part of his order he has recorded the arguments of the assessee's counsel whereby he had sought to distinguish the facts for the two assessment years. In my opinion, it was incumbent on the part of the learned Accountant Member to categorically deal with the arguments in this respect and express an opinion as to why the earlier order of the Tribunal on an identical issue was not applicable to a subsequent assessment year. The learned Accountant Member in fact accepts that there is no direct evidence available of the services rendered by the lady for the purpose of the business of the assessee-company but thereafter goes to hold that the provisions of section 40(c)/40A(5) are attracted in such a situation. He has further observed that approval by the Company Law Board means that pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arges received from the assessee-company and one of its partners, i.e., Shri Birender Pal Singh, was a person having vast experience in liquor business and he was also independently managing a number of liquor vends in and around Delhi. It was further submitted before the Tribunal that the tax authorities had disallowed the payment primarily on the ground that Blue Chip Co. were having some ladies as partners who could not be found at the addresses given. It was contended that non-availability of partners could not be the basis for disallowing C F handling charges paid to Blue Chip Co. which was a regular income-tax assessee at New Delhi. In support of the aforesaid, a copy of the assessment order dated June 23. 1989, of Blue Chip Co. in the status of registered firm was furnished. The further plea on the part of the assessee's counsel was that in the year under consideration the assessee-company had been able to earn a net profit of Rs. 6,14,471 on sale of McDowell products alone and this was the figure after taking into account the C F handling charges of Rs. 10,45,894 paid to Blue Chip Co. The further submission was to the effect that in case the assessee had not app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p. An attention was also invited to the fact that investigation made by the Assessing Officer revealed that Blue Chip Co. was a newly constituted firm having Shri Birender Pal Singh as karta of the Hindu undivided family as the main partner along with the two ladies, namely, Mrs. Rattan Sundari and Mrs. Anjali, but these two ladies were not found at the addresses given in the partnership deed when the Assessing Officer wanted to contact them. In concluding, the learned Departmental Representative urged that the payment of Rs. 10,45,894 to Blue Chip Co. did not pertain to a genuine transaction and he, therefore, supported the action of the tax authorities in rejecting the claim. The learned Accountant Member who wrote the initial order accepted the arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee noting the following facts and line of reasoning: 1. At its Faridabad depot the assessee was selling the products of McDowell Co. Ltd. as well as Herbertsons Ltd. and although both the companies belonged to the same group, they were separate and independent entities having different shareholding pattern. 2. From the copies of the correspondence exchanged between the assessee, McDowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... responsible for losses on account of bad debts and it was a fact that the assessee recovered a sum of Rs. 1.73 lakhs on account of bad debts from Blue Chip Co. 10. That there was no justification on the part of the tax authorities to hold that written agreement between the assessee and Blue Chip Co. was a sham and bogus agreement merely on the ground that two of the partners who were ladies could not be contacted specially when Blue Chip Co. had been granted registration and separately assessed to tax by the Income-tax Officer concerned at Delhi. In view of the aforesaid facts, the addition of Rs. 10,45,000 was deleted by the learned Accountant Member. The learned Judicial Member, however, did not agree with the view taken by the learned Accountant Member and by means of a dissenting order upheld the addition. This was done on the following grounds: 1. It was a sham transaction as two partners of the firm, Blue Chip Co., were not found available at the addresses given. 2. The staff strength of the assessee's Faridabad depot before and after the agreement with Blue Chip Co. remained the same, i.e., 8 when the sales of Herbertsons Ltd. were considerably low, i.e., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, strongly supported the orders passed by the tax authorities as also the order passed by the learned Judicial Member. After considering rival submissions, I am of the opinion that the view expressed by the learned Accountant Member merits confirmation inasmuch as he has not only taken into account all the relevant facts but has also given ample reasons for ultimately deleting the addition. In his order, he has dealt with the complete background leading to the appointment of Blue Chip Co. as the C F agent of the assessee-company at Faridabad dealing exclusively with the products of McDowell Co. He has also noted as a fact that the said agent took on rent separate independent premises to undertake the work and also employed independent staff and opened a separate bank account. It has also been noted that Blue Chip Co. was assessed to tax for the assessment year 1987-88 and granted registration. It stands to reason that a firm which is granted registration by the Assessing Officer is a genuine partnership and not a bogus entity and subsequently after a gap of few years when the firm stands closed and the assessment proceedings of the company are in progress, it would stand t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he staff strength remained the same before and after. Learned counsel has rightly pointed to page 174 of the paper-book contending that sales have gone up rather than the other way round and the submissions about the lady partners of Blue Chip Co. not being available at the time when the Income-tax Officer was making enquiries also appears to be plausible and acceptable. The learned Judicial Member has made a mention about the siphoning off funds by Blue Chip Co. partly to Mrs. Mallya and partly to United Agency as a factor for rejecting the assessee's claim but, in my opinion, one has to examine the matter taking an overall view of the cumulative factors rather than picking up one or two and this is what has been done by the learned Accountant Member to come to the conclusion that he did. In the final analysis, I uphold the view taken by the learned Accountant Member vis-a-vis the relief of Rs. 10,45,000 allowed in respect of the payment made to Blue Chip Co. As regards the third point of difference, the facts noted by the Assessing Officer are to the effect that a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs was paid to United Breweries Ltd., Bangalore, claimed to be the assessee's contribution to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion purposes. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee in the light of the aforesaid agreement had to disclose to United Breweries Ltd. all the necessary information which is shown to have been forwarded vis-a-vis copy of correspondence, etc., filed by the assessee. The view of the Assessing Officer, in other words, was that no evidence had been placed on record to prove that services had been rendered by the corporate management division to the assessee. To the same effect were his observations in respect of the opinion filed by the chartered accountants. The Assessing Officer also sought to distinguish the judgment of the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Oriental Carpet Mfrs. (India) P. Ltd. [1972] 86 ITR 543, as also the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Chandulal Keshavlal and Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601, purportedly relied upon by the assessee. In the final analysis, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim following in this connection the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lachminarayan Madan Lal v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 439. On further appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the disallowance on the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d decision of the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Phipson a lid Co. Ltd. in I.T.A. No. 3415 of 1991, dated December 23, 1996. The learned Department Representative, on the other hand, supported the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) rejecting the claim. The learned Accountant Member accepted the arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee in part but recording finding of fact to the effect that the corporate management division of United Breweries Ltd. had incurred total revenue expenditure of Rs. 1.76 crores out of which it had offered for disallowance a sum of Rs. 13,13,502 under various provisions, i.e., section 37(3) under rule 6D and on account of entertainment. The learned Accountant Member also took note of the details of the total expenditure incurred, i.e., Rs. 1.76 crores incurred, by United Breweries Ltd. and given at pages 113-114 of the paper-book. It was noted as a finding of fact that the entire expenditure was of a revenue nature and major expenditure was on account of inland travelling, miscellaneous expenses, annual conference expenses, vehicle expenses, legal and professional expenses, etc. The learned Accountant Member also noted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er and the learned Departmental Representative supporting the view taken by the learned Judicial Member. I am, however, not in a position to agree with the submissions made by the learned Departmental Representative as the learned Accountant Member has given detailed reasons after recording the relevant facts to come to the conclusion that he did, whereas the learned Judicial Member without pointing out any infirmity either of fact or of conclusion in the order of the learned Accountant Member, chose to adopt the reasoning of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as his own. In my opinion, the work load is heavy on the person who writes a dissenting order as he is expected to deal with each and every factual aspect, point and the reasoning adopted by the other member or judge to come to the conclusion that he did whereas nothing of this sort is found in the present order of dissent. As the view taken by the learned Accountant Member is the correct one on the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed by him in the preceding paras, I uphold the same. As regards the last point of difference which arises out of the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal, the facts are discusse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the assessment year 1983-84 in I.T.A. No. 1498 of 1989, dated June 19, 1995. He accordingly rejected the solitary ground raised in the Revenue's appeal. The learned Judicial Member vide para. 7 of his dissenting order restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the following observations: "7. Now, coming to the Revenue's only ground against deletion of addition of Rs. 11,03,550 made out of service charges paid to marketing agents, while deleting the addition, main thrust by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was on past history of the case. From the facts and circumstances, it is found that the Assessing Officer has actually not been able to find out the extent of excessiveness to corelate with material, therefore, in my view, it would be fair and reasonable to restore this issue to his file for adjudicating the same afresh, after giving due opportunity to the assessee." The learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the order of the learned Judicial Member, whereas learned counsel for the assessee supported the order of the learned Accountant Member contending that the issue was squarely covered by the earlier order of the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
