9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber And Shri Girish Agrawal , Accountant Member None appeared on behalf of the appellant Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the respondent ORDER Per Sanjay Garg , Judicial Member : The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 17.10.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A) ] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: 1. That on the facts and in the Circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as Ld. CIT(Appeals)] was not justified and erred in law in co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Asish Kumar (HUF) AALHA6209E 9,39,434 Pradip Kumar Patawari (HUF) AAHHP2873H 2,40,561 Total 11,79,995 He asked the assessee to explain why commission to HUF entities be allowed. In reply, the assessee submitted as under: Our sales policy is not to lose a customer to the best of our ability and reward the person who develops or introduces a business for the life time of a relationship with such customer regardless of whether such introducer has a regular role in day to affairs or not. This secures a trust and we are known in a market for such trust and reliabi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d productivity bonuses as the company may consider 1necessary upon review of its own business health during the last month of the fiscal year. Considering the aforesaid reply, the Assessing Officer noticed that from the aforesaid reply it is revealed that the assessee had resorted to diverting commission payments to HUF entities as per the concerned Karta s request. He noticed that the aforesaid diversion did not prove rendering of services by the said HUF entities. He accordingly disallowed the payments of commission to HUF entities amounting to ₹ 11,79,995/- and added back the same to the income of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
