ORDER Harsha Devani, J. 1. By this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the appellant revenue has called in question the order dated 23rd January, 2015 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in I.T.A. No. 901/Ahd/2012 by proposing the following question stated to be a substantial question of law:-- "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law in upholding the decision of the CIT (A) in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 12685501/- out of total disallowance of Rs. 1,55,67,666/- made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, especially when the assessee has failed to bring any evidence of record that the payments made are covered under Circular No. 723 of 1995 and that the nonresidents ship owners/charters had filed returns u/s. 172 of the Act?" 2. The assessment year is 2005-2006. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,55,67,666/- under the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of non-deduction of TDS. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who by an order dated 12th March, 2012 partly allowed the appeal and reduced the disallowance to Rs. 28,82,501/-. Both the assessee and the revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue and partly allowed the assessee's appeal. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of its appeal, revenue has preferred the present appeal. 3. Mr. M.R. Bhatt, senior advocate, learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned order by reiterating the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer. 4. This court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and has perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as the orders passed by the lower authorities. 5. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the order dated 12th March, 2012 has recorded the following findings:-- "3.5. I have considered the facts of the case; assessment order and appellant's submission. Assessing officer disallowed payments made to shipping companies by the appellant on the ground that no TDS was deducted and paid to the government account as required under section 194C of IT act. Appellant submitted copy of bills of lading issued by these shipping companies in respect of all the payments. Assessing officer disallowed payments made to shipping companies by the appellant on the ground that no TDS was deducted and paid to the government account as required under section 194C of IT act. Appellant submitted copy of bills of lading issued by these shipping companies in respect of all the payments. Appellant strongly relied upon the CBDT circular number 723 as per which any payment of ocean freight to foreign shipping lines or Indian agent of foreign shipping lines is not subject to TDS under section 194C or section 195 since these are subject to section 172 of IT act. Appellant also relied upon several decisions in which payment to agents of nonresident shipping companies were held to be not subject to TDS provisions. Therefore it is clear that wherever any person makes payment to nonresident shipping companies or to any agent of such shipping company then provisions of section 194C will not be applicable and accordingly non-deduction of TDS will not result in disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of IT act. With the circular 723 and judicial decisions, following conclusions can be drawn- 1. - if any payment is made to an Indian shipping company which is acting as shipping line and not an agent of nonresident shipping company, requirement of deducting tax under section 194C will be there. Non-deduction of TDS in these cases will result in disallowance. 2. - Any payment to nonresident shipping company will not require deduction of tax. Therefore Non-deduction of tax will not result in any disallowance. 3. - payment to Indian agent of nonresident shipping company will also not require deduction of tax at source and accordingly non-deduction will not result in any disallowance. The assessing officer, in the remand proceeding did not examine the issue from the available documents whether TDS was required to be deducted or not. AO only called for some more documents which could not be submitted by the appellant since appellant did not possess the same. Assessing Officer did not examine whether payments were made to agent of the nonresident shipping company or Indian shipping company in the capacity of shipping line. Therefore the verification of evidences was done by the undersigned. I have verified all the copies of bills of lading and as per that except in three cases discussed later, all the payments were made to the agents of nonresident shipping companies. Therefore the verification of evidences was done by the undersigned. I have verified all the copies of bills of lading and as per that except in three cases discussed later, all the payments were made to the agents of nonresident shipping companies. While signing the bill of lading, it is clearly mentioned that Indian company signed the same as an agent for and on behalf of nonresident shipping company. Therefore as per circular 723 and the decisions relied upon by the appellant, there was no requirement of deducing TDS under section 194C. Since TDS was not required to be deducted, there is no question of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of IT act. The details are tabulated in the last submission of the appellant mentioned in para 3.2. However in respect of the following payments, the same were made to Indian Shipping companies as shipping line and not as agent of nonresident shipping company- 1 - ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LTD. Rs. 26,74,072 2 - P. & O. NEDLLOYD INDIA PVT. LTD. Rs. 3,08,429 3. - THE SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. Rs. 27,24,994 Appellant made payments to aforesaid Indian shipping companies in capacity as principal shipping lines and not as agent of nonresident shipping company. This is very clear from the bill of lading signed by these companies. Accordingly any payment to these companies required deduction of TDS under section 194C since circular number 723 and the decisions relied upon by the appellant are not applicable. However in the case of shipping Corporation of India Ltd., appellant submitted no deduction certificate issued by DCIT. TDS by order dated 15-04-2004 for assessment year 2005-06. In view of this, appellant was not required to deduct TDS in respect of payments made to Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Accordingly there was no violation of TDS provisions in the case of payments to shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Therefore the disallowance of payment made to shipping Corporation cannot be made. However there is no such certificate in the case of other two Shipping companies whom total payment of Rs. 2574072 and Rs. 308429 were made without deducting TDS. Therefore appellant violated the provisions of section 194C in respect of payments made to ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINIE LTD. and P. & O. NEDLLOYD INDIA PVT. LTD. There is no explanation for not deducting TDS in these cases since these are not covered by circular 723. 2574072 and Rs. 308429 were made without deducting TDS. Therefore appellant violated the provisions of section 194C in respect of payments made to ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINIE LTD. and P. & O. NEDLLOYD INDIA PVT. LTD. There is no explanation for not deducting TDS in these cases since these are not covered by circular 723. Accordingly the total payments made to them amounting to Rs. 28,82,501 is liable for disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of IT act. In view of this, the disallowance made by the assessing officer is confirmed to the extent of Rs. 28,82,501 and balance disallowance is deleted." 6. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record has found that the Commissioner (Appeals) has verified all the copies of the bills of lading and as per that except in three cases, all payments were made to the agents of nonresident shipping companies which fact was not disputed by the revenue and has accordingly come to the conclusion that the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in granting relief to the assessee to that extent. 7. From the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals), it is evident that he has thoroughly examined the facts of the case and has based his conclusions thereon. The Tribunal on an appreciation of the evidence on record has concurred with the findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals). It is not the case of the revenue that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on irrelevant material or that any relevant material has been ignored. Under the circumstances, the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal being based upon concurrent findings of fact recorded by it, in the absence of any perversity therein, do not give rise to any question of law much less, a substantial question of law as proposed or otherwise. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.