2013 (6) TMI 277

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1/Mds/2004, respectively. 2. The brief facts, arising out of the above orders, are as under:- The assessee / respondent is a company engaged in the manufacture of pistol, pins and heat treatment equipments. The relevant assessment is 1997-1998 and the corresponding accounting year ended on 31.03.1997. The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year on 01.12.1997. The said return was processed under Section 143 (1) (a) of the Act. Later notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act was issued. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act and determined the total income at Rs.99,240/-. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.23,75,000/-, under the head 'C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0/- and this amount should be deducted from the gross commission receipt is valid?" T.C.No.1456 of 2007:- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the penalty of Rs.10,21,250/- levied under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act is valid?" 3. Learned counsel for the Revenue / appellant vehemently contended that the orders passed by the Tribunal are wrong, illegal, without basis and arbitrary. It was contended by the learned counsel for the Revenue that the Tribunal is wrong in giving direction to the Assessing Officer to give deduction in respect of the brokerage on gross commission of Rs.23,80,000/-. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that the assessee company failed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or of the assessee company also accepted in his statement that he received commission at 15% on the value of the transaction. The total commission received on bogus and lease back commission is at Rs.23,80,000/-. The Managing Director of the Assessee Company has not disputed the receipt of the commission, but he contended that on earning of the said commission, he paid brokerage at 8-9%, therefore, he claims deduction. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim and estimated the same on the ground that there is no supporting documents available on record and allowed only Rs.5,000/- as estimated expenditure. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has held that the assessee would have certainly incurred expendi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ismissed. No costs. 7. In T.C.No.1456 of 2007 (penalty) the Assessing Officer determined the total income at Rs.99,240/- by making certain addition. The main addition made is on commission on bogus sales and lease back transaction of Rs.23,75,000/-. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act and levied a minimum penalty of Rs.10,21,250/-. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-Tax confirmed the order of the penalty. The assessee filed the appeal against the CIT (Appeals) before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, by following this Court's judgment reported in (2006) 282 ITR 607 (Mad) (referred to supra) and the Apex Court's judgment reported in 2....