TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (4) TMI 2
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order passed by CIT(A) and thereby deleting the addition of Rs.19,84,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of commission paid by M/s G E International to M/s Arora & Associates? (b) Whether ITAT was correct in law in confirming the order passed by CIT(A) and thereby deleting the addition of Rs.1,07,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of commission paid by M/s AIFACS to M/s Manik Enterprises? (c) Whether ITAT was correct in law in allowing the assessee to spread the entire commission of Rs.62,05,375/- over the period of 06 years and thus charging only 1/6th of the commission in the present year? (d) Whether order passed by ITAT is perverse in law i) when it ignored the relevant material found by the Assessing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as findings of fact are concerned interference of the High Court would be justified only if it appears to it that the conclusions arrived at by the ITAT are palpably perverse. 5. The entitlement of sundry parties to the receipt of commission essentially entails a determination of facts and the High Court must be loathe to enter into that arena except in the case of perversity. In both the Appeals this question has been dealt with threadbare at all the three stages of the assessment adjudication. In these proceedings we are concerned with the receipt of commission for the letting-out of property belonging to the All India Fine Arts and Crafts Society(AIFACS) to M/s. G.E. International. For the Assessment Year 1994-1995 the Assessee had r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of Rupees 8,08,875/-, thus showing only a sum of Rupees 2,69,625/- as taxable. The additions of Rupees 28,50,000/- and Rupees 30,00,000/- paid by AIFACS to Competent Holding (P) Ltd. and SMC Food Ltd. aggregating Rupees 58,50,000/- were deleted by the CIT(A). After duly noting the constitution of ownership of Manik Enterprises (P) Ltd., and the aspect of lifting of corporate veil, the CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rupees 51,75,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. It was also highlighted by the CIT(A) that a company has to bear a higher incidence of tax and, therefore, it would be of no advantage to the Assessee to share the commission and thereby eventually subject itself to a higher taxation. The addition of commission of Rupees 2,00,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rarchy of authorities the Appellate Tribunal is the final fact finding body : its decision on questions of fact are not liable to be questioned before the High Court." To the same effect are the observations in CIT, Calcutta vs Karam Chand Thapar and Brothers (P) Ltd., AIR 1989 SC 1045, as will be clear from a reading of the following passage:- 7. ....Where the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the loss incurred by the assessee in the sale of shares held by it was a trading loss and its is not the case of the Department that in arriving at its decision the Tribunal had taken into consideration any irrelevant material or failed to take into consideration any relevant material, there is no room for interference by the Court. It is w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n be questioned only if it partakes of a perverse nature, that is, it is indicative of an action, opinion or conclusion which could not reasonably be arrived at; that an incorrect conclusion is not invariably perverse unless it is palpably deliberate or mala fide. 9. None of the arguments addressed on behalf of the Revenue can persuade us to conclude that these findings of fact partake of the nature of perversity. So far as the sharing of the commission between the Assessee and the aforementioned business concerns is concerned, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. 10. The second question which we are called upon to inquire into is whether it was legally permissible for the Assessee to stagger its income over a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Satish Panalal Shah, [2001] 249 ITR 221 their Lordships have opined that it is not permissible for the Revenue to accept a legal proposition in the case of one assessee and assail in the case of another. We think there is sufficient reason for our attention to be drawn to Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Varghese Mani, [2001] 252 ITR 735. In that case a total of Rupees 2,11,500/- was received by way of interest but the Assessee had admitted only Rupees 32,965/- as interest, attributable to the previous year ending on March 31, 1990 on the ground that the discounted value of interest also included interest which would accrue over the future period of three years. It was held that the entire interest accrued and received was assessable in the As....