Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/1335/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 1335 of 2009
=================================================
COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX-I - Appellant(s)
Versus
LATE
SHRI SAM FARAMROZ WADIA L/H SMT FARIDA S WADIA - Opponent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
MRS
MAUNA M BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1,
MR MANISH J SHAH for
Opponent(s) : 1,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE
MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date
: 28/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Revenue
is in appeal against the order dated 7.11.2008 passed by the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal. The question sought to be raised is as
follows:-
” Whether the
Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the
order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.40,85,300/-
made by the Assessing Officer on account of commission expenses not
considered for the purpose of business?”
2. With
the assistance of the learned counsel for the Revenue, we have
perused the documents on record. Issue pertains to disallowance of
commission of Rs. 40,85,100/-, which the assessee claims to have paid
for sale of fire brigade vehicle, which the assessee disallowed
primarily on the ground that the different payments totaling to the
said sum of Rs.40,85,100/- were not confirmed by the various parties
to whom the assessee claimed to have paid by way of commission.
3. The
assessee, aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, approached
the CIT(Appeals). Commissioner allowed the appeal and reversed the
order of the Assessing Officer, upon which the Income Tax department
approached the Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment
disallowed 1/8th portion of the total commission of Rs. 40,85,100/-
directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the deduction accordingly
but with respect to remaining portion upheld the judgment of the
CIT(Appeals). Thus, barring the 1/8th portion from total claim of Rs.
40,85,100/-, the Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the appeal of the
Revenue, upon which the present appeal has been preferred for
consideration of above noted question.
4. From
the record, we find that the Tribunal was of the opinion that even
the Revenue did not doubt the genuineness of the payments of
commission nor disputed that the services were rendered by different
groups for which such commission was paid. It was found that upon
notice by the Assessing Officer, some of the recipients of the
commission stated that to reduce tax liability, the said commission
was accepted in the name of several persons of the family. The
Tribunal found that such information was passed on to the concerned
officer for reopening of such cases. The Tribunal, however, found
that in so far as present assessee is concerned, when neither the
payment nor the service rendered were disputed, deduction could not
be withheld.
5. We
are in agreement with the view of the Tribunal. We find that the
entire issue is based on appreciation of the facts on record. No
substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Tax Appeal is,
therefore, dismissed.
(Akil
Kureshi, J. )
(Ms.
Sonia Gokani, J. )
sudhir
Top