9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion are as under:- (i) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the business of consignment agent and trading of color chemicals. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the AO that the appellant has claimed a sum of ₹ 22,57,462/- on account of commission payment in its profit and loss account as per the following details: Sr. No Name Amount I . Pankaj Bakliwal 99,967 2. Anil Maheshwai 1,50,110 3. Prateek Mantri 6,56,859 4. Gopal Sharma 1,82,248 6. Rahul Mantri 7,24,415 6. K.G. Colours 1,61,793 7. Deepak Sharma 1,99,623 8. Kundan Ram Choudhary 82,447 Total 22,57,462 (ii) The AO required the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with documentary evidences thereof. (v) However, no documentary evidence was filed by the appellant in support of payment of commission. No documentary evidence have been filed about the services rendered by the persons to whom hefty commission was paid. No linkage between the commission received and commission paid has been provided. It has not been explained by the appellant whether the commission was paid on its own sale or on account of consignment sales. It is noted from the assessment order that some of the buyers of the goods from appellant have categorically stated that no intermediary was involved in their purchases from the appellant. (vi) It may be mentioned that in the case of Premier Breweries Ltd. (2015) 92 CCH 0098 ISCC / (2015) 372 ITR 0180 (SC), it was observed by the Hon ble Apex Court that: The question that was posed by the High Court was whether acceptance of the agreements, affidavits and proof of payment would debar the assessing authority to go into the question whether the expenses claimed would still be allowable under Section 37 of the Act. This is a question which the High Court held was required to be answered in the facts of each case in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owance of commission payment for which the assessee ld. AR of the assessee filed the written submission and the same has been taken into consideration for adjudication of the appeal of the assessee. 2.4 The ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 2.5 I have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. It is noted from the records that the assessee is a lady proprietor and she is engaged in the consignment / agency of all kinds of colour, chemicals and dyes which are mainly used in textile industries. It is further noted that for the conduct of business, the assessee utilized the services of various persons/ agents for targeting optimum sales of her business. The AO observed that assessee paid total commission of ₹ 22,57,462/- to the persons/ agents who rendered the services for achieving the target set up by the assessee. The details of payment of commission amounting to ₹ 22,57,462/- paid by the assessee to the following persons are as under:- Sr.No Name Amount I . Pankaj Bakliwal 99,967 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ADDPM4745J 3. Prateek Mantri 32842931 2% 656859 ARFPM3533J 4. Gopal Sharma 9112404 2% 182248 AGXPS1638P 5. Rahul Mantri 36220753 2% 724415 BCJPM4771L 6. K.G. Colours 16179339 1% 161793 PANNOTAVBL 7. Deepak Sharma 19962329 1% 199623 AXHPS8962P 8. Kundan Ram Choudhary 8244680 1% 82447 ACRPC7428D Total 135066255 2257462 It is further noted from pages 1 to 8 of the paper book of the assessee that the assessee had paid commission to the above persons for rendering the service in order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs of the family are competent to work in the business of the family, naturally they will be required to pay the minimum / the same compensation / benefit/incentive as other employees are paid. Hence, it has no relevance that they were paid the commission expenses. It is given to them for the work accomplished by them and the TDS was deducted from the commission expenses and thus deposited in Govt. Account. Both the sons of the assessee had filed the Income tax Returns for the assessment year 2011-12 and the same is available at pages 81 and 82 of the assessee's paper book. It is also noted that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee relied on following case laws. (i) Mobile Communication (India) (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 125 ITD 309 (Del.) (Trib.) (ii) V.I.P. Industries Ltd. Vs. IAC 36 ITD 70 (Bom)(Trib)(TM). (iii) Anupam Synthetics (P) Ltd. Vs. JCIT 104 TTJ 119 (Del.(Trib.) (iv) CIT Vs. Ishwar Prakash Bros. 159 ITR 843 (P H) (HC). (v) CIT Vs. Gautam Creations (P) Ltd. 171 Taxman 271 (Del.) (HC). (vi) CIT Vs. Shriram Pistons Rings Ltd. (2012) 206 Taxman 41 (Del.)(HC) (Mag.) (vii) J.K. Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 112 ITR 285 (Cal.) (HC). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
