2008 (4) TMI 269

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ons :- "(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the discount of Rs.6,67,458/- was actually given to the customers, when some of the supporting vouchers, which were test checked, were found to be forged. (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in not discussing the evidence of the Government Registered Forensic Expert, who had certified that some of the vouchers were forged and ignoring the law laid down on the admissibility of evidence by the apex court in the case of Nawab Ganj Sugar Mills Company Ltd. Vs CIT (1972) 86 ITR 44 (S.C.). (3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isallowed by the Assessing Authority on the ground of certain discrepancies being found in some of the vouchers. Being aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the disallowance of such discount. Being aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed the second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeal and deleted the addition towards disallowance of such discount. The Tribunal held as follows :- "We have considered the rival submissions. Regarding the first issue of disallowance out of expenses incurred on discount, the fact remains that the turnover of the assessee increased from Rs.1,45,39,946/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rs or there was a change in signature on account of language and the appellant-assessee gave good account of nine instances taken into account by the Assessing Officer out of 174 vouchers and on account of the same, almost entire discount could not be disallowed. Even the nine instances had properly been explained as to why there was discrepancy, therefore, the ld. CIT(A), without considering properly the submissions of the appellant-assessee (dated 29.4.94) made before him, has wrongly confirmed the amount of disallowance. Even if the amount of seven instances is taken into consideration, the amount is not even Rs.30,000/- even in view of the explanation, the same stands substantially explained, therefore, we have no hesitation in directin....