TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 19
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 2007-08 on 29.10.2007 declaring total income of Rs. 5,36,612/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment was framed under section 143(3) vide order dated 18.12.2009 and the total income was determined at Rs. 8,27,910/-. Aggrieved by the order of A.O., Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) vide order dated 8.11.2010 dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds:- 1. That on facts and in law the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in holding that the turnover discount of Rs. 1,71,349/- and service discount of Rs. 1,19,944/- is not allowable and that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idences to prove the genuineness of the discount, the Assessee had merely filed an affidavit of its partner to substantiate the claim. A.O. also noticed that during the financial year 05-06 another purchaser namely Mak Pump Industries (Ludhiana), though had made purchases of amount in excess of Rs. 1 crore as against the purchase of Rs. 35 lac by Jai Balaji Submersible (Haryana), but no Turnover discount or Service discount was allowed to Mak Pump Industries (Ludhiana). He therefore considered the claim in respect of Turnover discount and Service discount as the non genuine expenditure. As as alternate, he considered the discount to be prior period expenses and therefore also the same could not be allowed for the year under consideration. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not printed. The appellant has failed to show how Messrs. Mak Pump Industries failed to qualifies for the discount, whereas Messrs. Balaji succeeded in any case, the appellant has failed to show any evidence that giving the discount was as per the agreement. Hence, even on merit, the disallowance made by the AO is correct. The disallowance is confirmed, the grounds of appeal are dismissed. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Assessee is now in appeal before us. 7. Before us, the ld. A.R. reiterated the submissions made before A.O. and CIT(A). He further submitted that the Assessee has been consistently following the policy of crediting the Turnover discount and Service discount in the month of April of succeeding year and it is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar i.e. on 1.04.2006 i.e. in F.Y. 06-07. While disallowing the expenses, A.O has noted that Assessee did not furnish any documentary evidence in respect of Turnover discount and Service discount or details of other parties to whom such discounts were given during the financial years 05- 06 & 06-07. A.O. have also noted that during financial year 05-06 though the sales to another party M/s. Mak Pump Industries (Ludhiana) was to the extent of Rs. 1 crore and far more than that of Jai Balaji, but no turnover discount or service discount was offered to it. CIT(A) while upholding the order of A.O. has given a finding that the claim pertains to earlier year and not to the current year. CIT(A) has also held that the terms and conditions submitted ....