THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HAVING OFFICE AT AAYAKAR BHAVAN PATTO PLAZA, PANAJI GOA Vs. M/S. GOA MINERALS PVT. LTD., SALGAOCAR HOUSE, OPP. F.L. GOMES ROAD, VASCO-DA-GAMA, GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. A. Razaq, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. P. J. Pardiwalla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) The above appeals under Sec. 260-A of the Income Tax Act came to be admitted by an order dated 12.12.2011 on the following substantial question of law.

(3.) Ms. A. Razaq, learned counsel appearing for the appellant points out that though the hire charges have been assessed in the hands of HUF, the amounts were duly received by the individual members of the HUF. The learned counsel as such points out that the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on this count alone deserves to be quashed and set aside. The learned counsel further pointed out that as such amounts were allegedly paid in terms of the provisions of Sec. 40A(2)(a) of the said Act which payments are excessive and consequently the appellate authority was not justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer disallowing the hire charges of the barges as being excessive. The learned counsel further submits that the authorities below have erroneously found that the amounts were not excessive and as such the substantial question of law framed by this Court is to be answered in favour of the appellant.