JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

The common question raised in both the appeals filed by the Revenue against the same assessee is whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing deduction of the claim of commission paid by the assessee for the assessment years 1997-1998 and 1998-1999. The assessing officer rejected the claim for the reason that there is no evidence to prove the transaction. In first appeal, the disallowance was confirmed by CIT (A) for the year 1997-1998. However, for the next year 1998-1999, CIT (A) allowed the claim. In second appeals, the Tribunal held in favour of the assessee against which these appeals are filed by the Revenue. 2. We have heard the standing counsel appearing for the appellant and the counsel appearing for the assessee.

3. The assessee was admittedly a dealer in indian made foreign liquor making retail sales to the customers.

&1098/2009 2 Assessee's counsel clarified to us that the commission is a wrong term used and what was claimed is 'discount'. If, the assessee has made sales at discounted price, certainly, discounts calls for deduction. However, we see no reason why the assessee could not produce documents towards proof of discount, because trad