9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Disallowance of Commission ₹ 13,58,902/- 1.The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of Assessing Officer disallowing the commission paid merely on the ground that the commission agent did not responded to notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act without appreciating the confirmation of account, bank statement, statement of income, Balance Sheet and Profit Loss A/c. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing ₹ 46,644/- treating it as prior period expenses without appreciating that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively incurred for business purpose during the relevant year. 3. The C IT(A) erred in not admitting the additional evidence filed under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules without appreciating that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statutory notice was served. The Assessing Officer (AO) while making the assessment made various disallowance/addition including disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) in assessment order dated 30.11.2011, against which an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) including disallowance u/s 40A(ia) for the amount of ₹ 27,69,384/-. 3. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) in the impugned order dated 02.011.2012 against which the present appeal is filed before us. 4. We have heard the Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee and Departmental Representative (DR) of the revenue. At the beginning of making statement, AR of the assessee argued that assessee is not pressing the ground no.2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence u/s 46A and the same was dismissed by observing that appellate authority are vested with the discretion to admit or reject the application for production of additional evidence. 7. The Ld AR for the assessee argued that the Ld. CIT(A) has not allowed the application for leading additional evidence and mechanically rejected the same, otherwise the assessee could prove the identity of the party and the genuineness of the transaction and further argued that the payments were made through cheque. 8. DR of the revenue relied upon the order of authorities below on this ground and argued that this addition/disallowance does not require any interference from this Tribunal. 9. We have perused the material available on record and consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its reply dated 07.11.2011, explained that the freight octroi charges were separately charged in the purchase invoice by the supplier. While in booking purchase invoice, it is shown separately under the head Freight Octroi Charges , the payment is actually towards purchase invoice and that assessee has not made any payment to the transporter, freight charges are recovered by the supplier in the purchase invoice itself, hence, assessee is not required to deduct the TDS on such payment. The contention of the assessee was not accepted by the AO on the ground that as per the provision of section 194 of the Act any person responsible for paying any sum to any resident for carrying out any work in pursuance of contract between the contractor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls, the supplier charged the transport charge in their invoices whereas between the assessee and its supplier there is understanding for supply of the raw-materials on various terms and conditions and the supplier is not in the business of transportation and in fact, the supplier uses the services of goods of transport agency to fulfill the commitment of supply of material to the assessee and further argued that transportation charges are part of cost of goods and the freight charge was not paid separately. 14. The AR of the assessee relied upon the judgment of Punjab Haryana High Court titled as CIT(TDS) vs. Asst. Manager (Accounts) Food Corporation of India, reported vide 326 ITR 106 (P H) CIT vs. Bhagwati Steel 326 ITR 108(P H). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
