9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1997X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 3,17,699/- and , therefore, assessee cannot be saddled with the addition of amount which has not been disbursed to the assessee by Aircel. Allow the appeal of the assessee. - I.T.A. No. 1464/Kol/2014 - - - Dated:- 7-9-2018 - Shri A. T. Varkey, JM AND Dr. A. L. Saini, AM For the Appellant : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Durgapur dated 24.03.2014 for AY 2008-09. 2. The main issue of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of ₹ 62,27,292/- as well as enhancing the addition of ₹ 2,85,366/- base ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nications and was a distributor under M/s. DWL (Aircel) Mobile networking for the areas Burdwan town, Bud Bud, Kalna, Katwa and Memari. The Aircel allowed incentive to retail shop for activation charges through distributors, the assessee Disha Communications. From a perusal of the P L Account filed before us, we find that the total turnover of the assessee was to the tune of ₹ 2,24,22,061/- and the commission received from Aircel is shown as ₹ 3,17,699/-. According to the assessee, the Aircel has paid retail incentive commission of ₹ 65,12,658/- directly to the retailers in the form of recharging commission, activation charges on behalf of the assessee. However, the TDS credit was reflected on assessee s account and, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has referred to the letter dated 28.12.2010 from M/s. DWL (Aircel) wherein it has confirmed the payment of ₹ 65,12,658/- which also tallies with the figure of ₹ 65,12,658/- as referred to in letter dated 08.02.2012 which has been reproduced above. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and the aforesaid letter, the commission attributable to the assessee as his income is only ₹ 3,17,699/- and , therefore, assessee cannot be saddled with the addition of amount which has not been disbursed to the assessee by Aircel. So, we are inclined to allow the appeal of the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed Order is pronounced in the open court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
