PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BBSR vs. RADHESHYAM SINGHANIA

Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal to the extent that it sustains the disallowance of the commission expenditure incurred by the Appellant, is based on suspicion, conjectures and surmises, hence bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 3. He states that the Tribunal has arrived at perverse findings without taking cognizance of the documents in the form of emails filed by the Appellant in support of the transaction of commission expenditure incurred in connection with Railway contracts. In support of his submissions, he relies upon the judgments of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Conimeters Electricals (P) Ltd., (2010) taxmann.com 302 (Delhi) as well as Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Asian Mills Pvt. Ltd. decided by Gujarat High Court in R/Tax Appeal No.244/2021. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant further states that the Tribunal has failed to follow the principle of consistency laid down by the Supreme Court in Radha Soami Satsang v. CIT [1992]193 ITR 321(SC). 5. Having perused the paper book, this Court is of the opinion that whether any agent has rendered any service or not to the appellant is a question of fact. In fact, even in Conimeters Electricals (P) Ltd. (supra) and Asian Mills Pvt. Ltd (supra), the Courts dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue on the ground that no substantial question of law arose in the said matters as the issue as to whether any agent had rendered any service or not was a question of fact. 6. In the present case, the authorities below have given a concurrent finding of fact that the Appellant had failed to produce any evidence to prove that service had been rendered by Mr. D.N. Pandey to the appellant. The Tribunal in its order has also concluded that merely producing some This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001375