9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer observed that the expenditure under this head increased drastically from the preceding year's figure of Rs. 17,95,447. On being called upon to furnish the details in respect of this expense, the assessee made certain submissions and also filed details in respect of commission paid on exports. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee did not even furnish names of the recipients of commission of Rs. 4.60 lakh. Further, no address or other details were provided in respect of commission of Rs. 38.51 lakh and in respect of the remaining amount of Rs. 11 lakh, the A.O. opined that the circumstantial evidence showed that the commission was not genuinely paid. The learned CIT(A) upheld the assessment order on this issue. 3. Afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces by these so called commission agents. In spite of that, he relied on certain decisions to canvass a view that notwithstanding there being no evidence of rendering of services, the deduction should be allowed merely on the fact that the payment was made through banking channel. In our considered opinion, the facts of the cases relied on by the learned AR are distinguishable and are not germane to the issue under consideration. It is a fundamental proposition that the onus of proving the rendering of services is on the assessee for a genuine claim of deduction on account of commission. As the assessee has failed to lead any evidence in respect of services provided by these persons, we are of the considered opinion that no deduction can be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 40(a)(ia) to the tune of Rs. 31.38 lakh. When the matter came up before the learned CIT(A), he noticed that in respect of parties appearing in sr.nos.1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 11 and 12 of the above table, no disallowance was called for u/s 40(a)(ia) because the assessee made deduction of tax at source albeit at a lower rate Admittedly there is no cross appeal by the Revenue. As regards the payment made in sr.nos. 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10, the learned CIT(A) upheld the addition because no tax was deducted at source. The assessee has come up in appeal against the confirmation of disallowance in respect of these five parties. 7. The learned AR fairly admitted that no tax was deducted at source in respect of payments at Sr.nos.8 and 9 being those made to Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowance be sustained. We, therefore, remit the matter to the file of A.O. for deciding this issue afresh in accordance with our above directions. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 8. Last ground is against the confirmation of disallowance of traveling expenses to the tune of Rs. 2.70 lakh. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee claimed traveling expenses of Rs. 3.82 lakh including a sum of Rs. 2.70 lakh for which no particular bill was filed. The A.O. made disallowance of Rs. 2.70 lakh plus Rs. 10,000 on ad hoc basis. The learned CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 10,000 but sustained the disallowance of Rs. 2.70 lakh for lack of evidence. The lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
