TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1131
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de out of " Commission on sales'" by the Assessing Officer by ignoring explanation of the appellant and without considering the facts of the case properly and judicially. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 4,65,000/- made out of " Travelling Expenses" by the Assessing Officer by ignoring the explanation of the appellant and without considering the facts of the case properly and judicially. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 5,64,926/- made out of " Vehicle Maintenance and repairs Expenses" by ignoring the explanation of the appellant and without considering the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the opinion that the transactions were not proved to have been done and there was no explanation as to how the HUF can carry out the profession of commission. It is impossible to imagine that a HUF can carry out the detailed exercise of contacting the buyers and sellers and then act as a link between them until the transaction is over. A HUF is an abstract entity which is not capable of carrying out such activity. The commission work in the capacity of Karta is accomplished as a personal effort which should be booked in the books of Karta not in the books of HUF. HUF was a device for siphoning off profits of assessee in the form of commission. Thus, in view of the facts and the position of law discussed in detail, the commission payment t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as placed reliance on the orders of the lower Authorities. 9. We have perused the case record and analyzed the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that Revenue Authority has accepted total turnover of the assessee and turnover is increased by 37%. The commission has been paid also in the past years and assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 on which no additions have been made on payment of commission. In this regard, we take the guidance from the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal , Mumbai in the case of Shri Sunil Kumar Ganeriwal Vs. DCIT, in ITA No. 4276/Mum./2008 has held that the assessee has followed a consistent practice in regard to the nature of activities, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... reported as 245 ITR 492 ( Del.) has held that it is true that each assessment year being independent of each other, the doctrine of res-adjudicata does not strictly apply to the income tax proceedings, but where an issue has been considered and decided consistently in a number of earlier assessment years, in a particular manner for the sake of consistency, the same view should continue to prevail in the subsequent assessment years unless there is some material change in facts. 10. Therefore, in assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, no addition has been made and in the present year under consideration, in the similar facts and circumstances, any disallowance in the present year is unwarranted, unjustified and arbitrary. Therefore, we are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....last years results therefore the AO should not have disallowed these claims. In this regard, the AO has noted that similar disallowances were made in the last years also. Appellant in his submissions has not addressed the observation of the AO that some of the expenses are supported by the self-made vouchers and are not verifiable. In view of this the disallowance of part of the expenses is hereby sustained." 13. We have perused the case record, analyzed the facts and circumstances of the case. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue, we find that he is simply accepted the version of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not come out with specific findings as to why this disallowance should be sustained. We ....