Itxa/406/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -10 v. M/S. Swati Energy And Projects P Ltd

kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.406 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax-10.-Versus-M/s Swati Energy and Projects P. Ltd.. ..Appellant ..Respondent ........... Mr.Tejveer Singh, for the Appellant/ Revenue.Mr.F.V.Irani with Mr.A.K.Jasani, for the Respondent. ........... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARIAND GIRISH S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATE :- 25[th] March, 2014 PC: 1Though it is urged that our order passed today in the Income Tax Appeal No.407/2012 will cover the case, it is stated that same is partial. The question at paragraph 4(a) is covered by our order in the Income Tax Appeal No.407/2012. However, it is urged that the question at paragraph 4(b) would raise a substantial question of law. 2We are unable to agree. The Tribunal has, in paragraph 23, assigned cogent and satisfactory reasons by stating that as far as the written agreement between the Assessee and agent is concerned, that has not been disputed. However, the payment for sub-commission to one M/s Suvi Rubber Pvt. Ltd. was put in issue. That was shown as advance and on the principle of matching concept, it was claimed in Assessment Year in question, namely, Assessment Year 2004-2005. It was not claimed previously. However, the Tribunal found that M/s Suvi Rubber Pvt.Ltd. is a taxpayer. There is, thus, finding that the amount has been paid by account payee cheque. Both, namely, the Revenue and the Assessee recognized the matching concept. In these circumstances and by applying that concept, the Tribunal has set aside and reversed the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had sustained disallowance made by the Assessing Officer only on the ground that the payment was made in the earlier year. That was not justified in the given facts and circumstances. 3In this view of the matter even this Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and it is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. In this view of the matter even this Appeal does not raise any (GIRISH S. KULKARNI, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)