Shri Prabhakar Enterprises, Kakinada and (4) Mehta Trading Company, Bombay. That plea however was not accepted and deduction was denied. The assessing officer relied upon a statement recorded from the Managing Director of the assessee company, during the course of search conducted in the year 1988 and took the view that the so-called payment of commission and brokerage to authorised dealer-firms was noting but a device to evade tax. For the assessment year 1985-86, claim for deduction under the same heading for a sum of Rs.97,67,302/- was made. Here again, the assessing officer relied upon the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act and disallowed the claim to the extent of Rs.56,16,426/-. Against the order of the assessing officer for the two assessment years, two appeals were filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Vijayawada. The Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeals and allowed deduction, to the extent of Rs.76,76,463/- for the assessment year 1984-85 and Rs.21,29,278/- over and above what was allowed by the assessing officer for the assessment year 1985-86. The Revenue, on the one hand and the assessee, on the other hand filed two appeals each, before the Hyderabad Bench ‘A’ of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
