9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... huge brought forward loss. The income was also diverted as against the huge loss. Provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act has been attracted. - Addition upheld - Decided against the assessee. - DB IT APPEAL NO. 297 OF 2009 - - - Dated:- 16-4-2012 - ARUN MISHRA, DR. MEENA V. GOMBER, JJ. N.L. Agarwal for the Appellant. Mahi Yadav and Sameer Jain for the Respondent. ORDER By the Court Heard on the question of admission. 2. The appeal has been preferred as against order dated 19.9.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal no. 716/JP/2007. The Assessment Officer has made the addition of Rs. 16,47,512/-. The same has been affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax in appeal as also by I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 56,910/- received by the he has shown payment brokerage/commission amounting to Rs. 13,44,167/- to Shri Uttam Chand Jam, his son and Rs. 3,03,345/- to Smt. Sunita Jain, his daughter-in-law. The AO asked the assessee to explain the basis and justification of these payments of brokerage/commission to his family members. It was explained that these relatives have made investment through the assessee by using the specific code number of the assessee and accordingly brokerage so paid by the company has been passed onto these family members in their investment. The AO examined the various statements of brokerage furnished by the assessee before him and he noticed that investment in the mutual fund have been made by various persons by using code n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been passed over to the said relatives. The case is squarely covered under the Provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The assessee has not passed over the brokerage to any other investors and nothing has been brought on record that it is a practice to pass over the brokerage to the investors whereas the assessee has passed over the total brokerage to his relatives. Therefore, the said expenditure claimed by the assessee is excessive/unreasonable to the fair market value. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) who has rightly confirmed the action of the AO. Thus Ground No. 3 of the assessee is dismissed." 6. It is apparent that Assessment Officer has examined various statements of the brokerage which were fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
