9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rading and manufacturing of pharma products. It has efiled its return of income at Rs. 98,280/- . After processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act, the same was further selected for scrutiny assessment and notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO has noticed that the assessee has paid commission expenses of Rs. 30,66,480/- which appeared to be not genuine. The commission expenses noticed by the AO in the impugned order were in respect of the following persons: Name of person Amount paid (in Rs.) Jagdish Chander Kumar 10,00,000 Neeru J Puri 5,00,000 Madhu Kumar 10,00,000 Devendra J Kumar 2,61,900 Desai Pritesh Dolatrai 2,93,100 4. The AO c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .Neeru J Kumar of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Thus, he disallowed a total amount of Rs. 25.00 lakhs, and the remaining was allowed. In appeal, the ld.First Appellate Authority upheld the stand taken by the AO, but gave a part relief of Rs. 2,68,800/- in respect of commission payment paid to Smt.Madhu Kumar and confirmed balance amount of Rs. 22,31,200/-. Against this confirmation, the assessee is now before the Tribunal. 5. Before me, the ld.counsel for the assessee reiterated his submissions as were made before the Revenue authorities. The assessee filed a paper book which contained copy of agreement entered into with the agents and scope of work. It is placed at page no.40 and 41 of the paper book. He submitted that the agents are highly educated an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ld.DR supported orders of the Revenue authorities. He further submitted that Revenue authorities have justified in disallowing claim of the assessee, because there was no evidence in the form of client base of a particular agent, correspondences made with the clients, rate of commission for each transaction and the agent-wise contribution to the assessee's turnover. Therefore, orders of the Revenue authorities require to be upheld. 7. I have considered rival submissions and gone through the record carefully. The issue before the Tribunal was whether the commission payments made by the assessee to the above agents are genuine and are allowable expenditure under the provisions of the Act. For adjudicating this issue, it is pertinent to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een the business of the assessee and payments made to the agents have been established. These independent evidences produced by the assessee would prove that services were rendered by the agents, which have not been disputed by the Revenue. The Revenue authorities doubted the payment of commissions merely on the facts that agents are related to the assessee, and that commission expenses were claimed to reduce the tax liability of the assessee company, which allegation was not supported by any independent finding. The agents have included the receipts in their return of income and that there was no evidence to show that the money has come back to assessee so as to allege that the transactions are bogus to avoid tax by reducing the profit. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
