TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (3) TMI 27
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inafter referred to as " Ramkumar ") for supplying coins in exchange for currency notes. In the year of account relevant to the assessment year 1973-74, the commission paid to Ramkumar was Rs. 7,812. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed that it had to pay this commission to get small coins as there was shortage of coins. It was the assessee's case that many customers who came to take snacks and tea in its hotel were required to be given coins and, therefore, it was necessary for the assessee to have small coins for the purpose of the business. It was, therefore, that the assessee claimed that the expenditure incurred by it by way of commission was business expenditure. The Income-tax Officer held an enquiry to f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the disallowance of Rs. 29,337 in respect of commission alleged to have been paid to Ramkumar in the assessment year 1972-73. So far as the assessment year 1973-74 was concerned, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner gave relief of Rs. 300 in lump sum out of the total disallowance made by the Income-tax Officer. It was stated that so far as the amount of Rs. 7,812 alleged to have been paid to Ramkumar in the assessment year 1973-74 was concerned, the entire amount was taken to have been disallowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In other words, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the disallowance of the said amount of Rs. 7,812. Being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee carr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....26,337 added by the Income-tax Officer claiming it to be payment made to Ramkumar Kalyanmalji and claimed under vatav expenditure ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in presuming that the amount of Rs. 26,337 was affirmed to have been received by Ramkumar although he denied it because he admitted the signatures and that Ramkumar was backing out only with a view to save his skin from the income-tax authorities ? 3. Whether the decision of the Tribunal in deleting the addition of Rs. 26,337 added by the Income-tax Officer on account of disallowance of the claim of the assessee of payment to Ramkumar Kalyanmalji is correct in law and sustainable from the material on record ? Assessment year 1973-74 : 4. " Whether, on the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o examine Ramkumar in the course of the inquiry made by him in the absence of the assessee. It is not disputed that the Income-tax Officer had given an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine Ramkumar. The assessee, however, refused to avail of this opportunity and chose not to cross-examine Ramkumar. Thus, the statement made by Ramkumar went unchallenged. We fail to see how the Tribunal could have drawn an inference that Ramkumar was denying having received the amounts mentioned in the vouchers though admitting his signatures below the vouchers because he wanted to save his skin from the income-tax authorities when no suggestion to that effect was made to Ramkumar. In the absence of cross-examination by the assessee, no inference of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome-tax Officer doubted the genuineness thereof. The assessee, however, did not lead any evidence to prove such payment. On the other hand, as pointed out above, Ramkumar, in his statement, denied having received the amounts mentioned in the vouchers though he admitted his signatures below the vouchers. Since the statement made by him has gone unchallenged, there is no reason to disbelieve him. The Tribunal's finding that the amounts as alleged by the assessee were paid by way of commission to Ramkumar is perverse and against all the accepted principles governing appreciation of evidence. In our opinion, the assessee has totally failed to establish its claim in respect of Rs. 26,337, deduction of which was allowed by the Tribunal as busines....