9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 1069X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J.K.Cement Works. The assessee received commission of ₹ 55.68 lacs out of which, he claimed that he had paid ₹ 41.14 lac as commission for liaison work to sub-agents. After a detailed appraisal of the entire record, including statements etc., the Assessing Officer disallowed the commission. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed an appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal in part. The appellant and the revenue filed their separate appeals. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, vide impugned order dated 23.2.2010, allowed the appeal, filed by the revenue, set aside the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) and rejected the appeal filed by the assessee. Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant has failed to bring on record the exact nature of services rendered with quantitative details of services provided date-wise, party-wise details of supply etc. and has only furnished consolidated bills at the end of the year. A perusal of the order passed by the Assessing Officer reveals a detailed analysis of the record and statements recorded before him, before recording his conclusions, which have been affirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. A relevant extract from the order passed by the Tribunal reads as follows: " ...The basis for disallowing the commission is the investigation carried out by the Assessing Officer and the statement recorded of the various persons to whom the aforesaid commission is claimed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he allowability of the said expenditure. Further, we find that the alleged agreement with M/s PEW was entered into by the assessee on 8.4.2005 whereas the assessee was appointed as service agent by M/s SSTPL vide appointment letter dated 18.5.2005. Even the said appointment letter debarred the assessee from assigning the agreement with M/s SSTPL in favour of any other party. In the totality of facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the order of the CIT (A) in allowing the claim of the assessee on the basis of existence of agreement with one of the sub agents and admission of receipts of payments by the parties." Upon further consideration of the matter, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held as follows:- " .......The onus is upon t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
