1980 (2) TMI 282

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the light of the five issues framed by the Tribunal." 2. The assessee was a registered firm consisting of four partners, namely, Sarvshri Dev Dutt, Mulk Raj., Jagdish Chand and Smt. Shanti Devi. It derived its income from the manufacture and sale of utensils. The assessment for the year 1970-71 was completed by the ITO on January 6, 1973 at a total income of Rs. 36,580/- as against the declared income of Rs. 18,879/-. The assessee claimed a deduction in respect of an amount of Rs. 13,599/- which was stated to have been paid by way of commission to a partnership firm Messrs. Mulkraj and Company (hereinafter called the second firm) consisting of five partners, two of which, namely, Jagdish Chander and Smt. Shanti Devi were also partners ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... service rendered to the A firm by the selling agents to producing the orders from the said parties ? (ii) What is the material to indicate the services rendered by the selling agents to the assessee firm and the material in the shape of some documentary evidence which is contemporary in its nature ? (iii) What is the implication of the dissolution of the firm which entered into agreement with the selling agents on 2-4-1966 and what is the implication of the dissolution of the firm of selling agents also; both the events happening on the death of Shri Hira Lal in September 1968? (iv) Keeping in view the dissolution of the firm as well as of the firm of selling agents by virtue of the death of Hira Lal and the comi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. The matter involved in the appeal in the present case was as to whether the AAC had erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,599/- and not the grounds used in support thereof. The argument of the ld. counsel is obviously misconceived and has no merit. Secondly, it was argued that the Tribunal was not justified in remanding the case and should have himself finally decided it on the material available on the record. It was also argued that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to order a remand to afford an opportunity to the Revenue to lead evidence in rebuttal. Reliance for this contention was placed on Arjan Dass v. CIT, B. L. Choudhury v. CIT, Orissa and K. Mohammed v. ITO, Palghat. A perusal of these decisions would show that in none of th....