9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng any rectification was brought out by the assessee. The ld AR was not able to produce any evidence even at this stage to prove the factum of rendering of services by those commission agents. In any case, we find that the ld AR was not able to bring any mistake in the old order of this tribunal that requires to be rectified within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act. Hence, we do not deem this as a fit case warranting any rectification to be made in terms of section 254(2) and accordingly have no hesitation in dismissing this miscellaneous application filed by the assessee. - Decided against assessee. - M.A. No. 05/Kol/2015 In I.T.A No. 1233/Kol/2010 - - - Dated:- 8-3-2017 - Shri N. V. Vasudevan, JM And Shri M. Balaganesh, AM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee in earlier year also and this was not the first year of their dealing with the assessee. Admittedly, the commission was paid by the assessee for introduction of client. Accordingly, the ld AO concluded that the question of introduction of client does not arise in the instant case. The ld AO had reproduced the replies given by each of the party in the assessment order itself. Based on these replies and further verification of some more parties, the ld AO had concluded that the assessee firm was not able to establish and prove that commission was paid to alleged individual commission agents for services rendered by them. He further held that the payments were merely a book entry and was a colorable transaction to lower the taxab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ason alone, the claim is not sustainable. We find that this tribunal had already disposed off the first miscellaneous application vide MA No. 05/Kol/2013 dated 2.8.2013 stating that no mistake apparent from record within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act warranting any rectification was brought out by the assessee. The ld AR was not able to produce any evidence even at this stage to prove the factum of rendering of services by those commission agents. In any case, we find that the ld AR was not able to bring any mistake in the old order of this tribunal that requires to be rectified within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act. Hence, we do not deem this as a fit case warranting any rectification to be made in terms of section 254 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
