OM PRAKASH, J. - (1.) THIS is an application by the CIT under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 that the Tribunal be directed to refer the following question for opinion of this Court: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally correct in ignoring the relevant evidence and material on record and deleting the enhancement made by the CIT (A) of Rs. 4,44,832 on account of disallowance of commission paid? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the payment of commission amounting to Rs. 4,44,832 by the assessee could be said to be made for services rendered wholly and exclusively for business activity or merely for diversion of profit to bring down the incidence of taxation? 3. Whether, on the mere establishment of the factum of payment of commission entitled the assessee to claim deduction for such amount without his establishing the business expediency of such expenditure? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee could be said to have discharged the onus that lay upon it to establish that the payment of commission amounting to Rs. 4,44,832 was laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business? 5. Whether, the conclusion to which the Tribunal came is such as no reasonable person could come to CIT vs. Radha Kishan Nandlal 1975 CTR (SC) 136 : (1975) 99 ITR 143 (SC)?"
(2.) THE assessee, a partnership firm carried on business in wines. The assessee debited an amount of Rs. 5,78,184 representing commission to the P&L a/c, the break up of which is as follows: Whereas the claim in regard to first two items was allowed by the IAC (Assessment) the last item was disallowed. On appeal, the CIT (A) disallowed the first two items as well. The Tribunal, however, allowed the claim of the assessee in respect of all the three items. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that no question of law arises. The question for consideration before the Tribunal was whether or not the commission aggregating to Rs. 5,78,184 was paid for business purposes. The Tribunal recorded the findings that all the three sets of recipients of commission rendered services to the assessee-firm and, therefore, payment of commission related to the business. The question whether or not services were rendered by the recipients of commission of the assessee-firm is a question of fact. Both the ITO and the Tribunal concurred that services were rendered by S.N. Sahu and by 31 persons whom the commission aggregating to Rs. 4,44,832 was paid. The Tribunal also found that related to the business of the assessee-firm. The finding of the Tribunal are pure findings of fact and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, that no question of law arises from the Tribunal's order, . Rs. 1. S.N. Sahu 1,33,314 2. 31 persons 3,11,554 3. 8 ladies 1,33,314 . 5,78,184 insofar as it relates to the payment of commission aggregating to Rs. 5,78,184. We, therefore, decline to ask the Tribunal to refer any question proposed by the Revenue in this application.
(3.) THE application is, therefore, rejected. No order as to costs.;