9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals), that some of the parties did furnish the copies of bills for commission raised on the assessee, which, in my opinion, was sufficient to establish the services rendered by them to the assessee in order to justify the payment of commission. Having regard to all these facts of the case, find myself in agreement with the ld. CIT(Appeals) that the disallowance of commission made by the Assessing Officer was not justified and the same was liable to be deleted. - Decided against revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid through that Bank, Copy enclosed. Your honour sir, during the course of the scrutiny, for the assessment year 2010-11, the Ld. Assessing Officer has wrongly observed and stated that the commission of ₹ 34,78,933/- paid to different parties are not being evidenced at all and based on the same he disallowed the same and computed the total income by disallowing the said commission paid of ₹ 34,78,933/-. However we have already submitted the particulars of commission paid to the different parties and TDS has been deducted thereon, TDS return filed in this regard and the confirmation obtained from all the parties relating to the said commission paid during the assessment year 2010-11. In spite of our submission in this regard, the Ld. Assessing Officer has rejected such evidences of the commission paid during that assessment year and arbitrarily disallowed the same which is highly excessive, arbitrary & unrealistic with regard to the nature of trade being carried on by the Appellant. The Ld. Assessing Officer was not justified by completing the assessment proceedings under section 144/143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961. The above facts and grounds clearly depict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is about the disallowance of commission of ₹ 34,78,933/-. The AO carried out inquiries in the remand proceedings in case of six payees and it is clear from the reports that the recipients confirmed having received commission from the appellant. The AO's main objection in respect of some of the recipients is that they have not been able to show that they have accounted for the commission received from the appellant. On the other hand, the appellant has contended that DEPB licenses are purchased from exporters and sold to importers through brokers/commission recipients and commission payments were made after deducting tax at source and could be verified from its books of account. It was also stated that the commission receipts and the fact of having rendered services was confirmed by the payees and payment of commission could be duly verified form its books of account and bank statements. In respect of Shri Vikas Khandelwal and Shri N. Rajesh Jain, HUF it was specifically contended by the appellant vide letter dated 03.11.2015 as under: "But in case of Sri Vikas Khandelwal, the party has been paid both by cash & Cheque, as per the verification of the AO from the bank st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sfactorily explained by the appellant. There is, therefore, no material on record to justify the disallowance of the entire commission claimed by the appellant. Hence, the disallowance of commission of ₹ 34,78,933/ - is deleted". Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the Revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. D.R. submitted that commission was claimed to be paid by the assessee to total 35 parties for purchase and sale of DEPB License. He submitted that the Assessing Officer during the course of remand proceedings made enquiry with some of the said parties and although all of them confirmed of having received the commission amount from the assessee, they could not produce the bills for commission raised on the assessee showing the nature of services rendered by them. He contended that the mere fact that the amount of commission was paid by the assessee to the concerned parties after deducting tax at source and the said amount was offered by them in their returns of income alone could not be sufficient to prove the genuineness of commission and the onus in this regard was on the assessee to establish on evidence the factum of services re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
