COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. RAMDAS MOTOR TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, in R. A. Nos. 430, 431, 250 and 251/Hyd. of 1991, dated December 20, 1991, praying to direct the Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer the following questions formulated by the Revenue for the opinion of the High Court :

(2.) BRIEF facts.--The assessee-company was carrying on business as dealer of trucks and Voltas products as well as in manufacture and sale of automobile spares besides running a lorry service. For the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee filed returns based on its audited and published accounts, wherein it claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 86,76,463 being the commission paid on sale of spare parts to various commission agents. The Income-tax Officer, however, rejected the said claim. On appeal, the Com-missioner (Appeals) sustained the disallowance of a sum of Rs. 10,00,000. For the next assessment year, i.e., 1985-86, the assessment was done under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. While so, on February 10, 1988, and February 11, 1988, the Department conducted the search in the premises of the assessee-company, the managing director and the other directors of the company and assessment for the said year was completed basing on the materials gathered in the course of the search. During this year, the assessee claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 97,67,302 being the commission on sale of spare parts. But, the Income-tax Officer, relying upon the statements of the managing director of the assessee and other partners of the firms to whom commissions were allegedly paid, recorded during the course of the search, disallowed a sum of Rs. 56,16,426. The names of the firms which were allegedly paid commission are :

(3.) QUESTIONS Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10.--The issues raised in these questions are purely factual in nature. We are satisfied that the findings recorded by the Appellate Tribunal on these issues are based on the material adduced on record and on a correct appreciation of the evidence. We, therefore, do not think that these questions raise any question of law which requires reference under Section 256(2) of the Act. In fact, there was not much argument on these questions. Hence, these questions do not require any reference under Section 256(2).