9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a registered insurance agent with various insurance companies and also derives income from investment activities. For the assessment year under consideration, assessee filed its return of income on 29th September 2011, declaring total income of Rs. 3,44,920. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticing discrepancies between the brokerage income shown by the assessee as per the books of account and as reflected in Form no.26AS called upon the assessee to reconcile them. Though, the assessee attempted to reconcile the discrepancies by furnishing some explanation, however, the Assessing Officer was not convinced with the submissions of the assessee and added back the amount of Rs. 15,60,133. Though, the assessee ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee failed to reconcile the difference,the addition was made. However, she has no objection if the issue is restored for verification of the Assessing Officer. 6. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The addition of brokerage income is purely due to the discrepancy in the income shown by the assessee and income reflected in Form no.26AS uploaded by the insurance company. However, before us, the assessee has filed the revised Form no.26AS, issued by the Insurance Company, as per which the total brokerage income received by the assessee is Rs. 44,00,963, which is claimed to be lesser than the brokerage income offered by the assessee from the said Insurance Company. Since, the aforesaid revised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied payment of salary to the concerned director by stating that such increase in salary was commensurate with his service to the company, however, the Assessing Officer for the reasons stated in Para-8.3 of the assessment order, did not accept the claim of the assessee and added back the enhanced amount of Rs. 50 lakh paid as salary during the relevant previous year by invoking section 40A(2) of the Act. 9. Though, the assessee challenged the addition before the first appellate authority, however, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the addition accepting the reasoning of the Assessing Officer. 10. Learned Authorised Representative reiterating the stand taken before the Departmental Authorities submitted that Shri Sandeep Dadia, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the directors of the company from Rs. 45 lakh in the preceding assessment year to Rs. 1 crore in the impugned assessment year. Therefore, the onus is on the assessee to justify such increase in salary to one person with proper reasoning. Though, the assessee has stated that the concerned director has immensely helped the development of the business of the company, however, what prompted the assessee to increase the salary to more than double the amount paid in the preceding assessment year has to be brought on record. Though, the assessee has submitted before us that such payment of salary is due to contractual obligation, however, no such documentary evidence has been brought on record to prove such facts and also to indicate the exact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
