TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (2) TMI 68
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11 relating to assessment year 2007-08 2. Ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee are against enhancing the income from Rs.1,76,217/- to Rs.2,20,271/- without following procedure laid down in section 251(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( In short, 'the Act') and sustaining the addition made by the AO i.e. Rs.1,76,217/-. In this way, entire addition made by the ld. CIT(A) at Rs. 2,20,217/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ked to produce the parties, to whom commission has been paid, therefore, disallowance of 8% is on higher side. Reliance was placed on various case laws. After considering the submissions and perusing the material available on record, the Ld. CIT (A) found that a similar disallowance was made in earlier year and matter traveled upto the stage of the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order dated 29....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny enhancement is to be made then opportunity is to be given to the assessee, which has not been given in the present case and therefore, enhancement is not proper. 4.1. Regarding merits of the case, it was submitted that in earlier year that too in the assessment year 2002-03, the assessee was required to produce the parties to whom commission has been paid. However, in the year under considerat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Ld. CIT (A) is not justified and the same is deleted. Regarding disallowance @ 8% by the AO, it is seen that the assessee was not required to produce the persons to whom commission has been paid. The Ld. CIT(A) followed the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2002-03 in assessee's own case whereas the assessment year under consideration is assessment year 2007-08. In between years ....