9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rpose of the business. To our understanding the assessee has not justified the services rendered by the commission agent, therefore, we do not find any merit in the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Accordingly, we uphold the findings of the authorities below. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Disallowance on account of consultancy expenses - Onus to prove - HELD THAT:- No ambiguity to the fact that the AO is not expected to interfere in the decision making process of the assessee. In the business environment, there are certain decision which are taken by the assessee depending upon the market forces. However, the primary onus lies upon the assessee at least to justify based on the documentary evidenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of consultancy expenses of ₹ 10,83,8337-. 3. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the fact and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. This action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Id. AO in levying interest u/s 234A/B/C/D of the Act. 5. The learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to increase the turnover and therefore the commission expenses were incurred. 5.1 It was also submitted by the assessee that the commission expenses were paid to unrelated parties after deducting the TDS. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt on the genuineness of the expenses. 6. However, the Ld. CIT(A), disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the assessee failed to furnish the details about the services rendered by the commission agents. It was also pointed out by the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessee has not furnished the names of the parties to whom the sales have been made after getting reference from the commission agents. Thus the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, we do not find any merit in the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Accordingly, we uphold the findings of the authorities below. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 11. The second issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO for ₹ 10,86,833/- on account of consultancy expenses. 12. The assessee in the year under consideration has paid consultancy charges to the various parties as detailed under: Sr. No. Name of the Payee Amounts(Rs.) 1. B Bharath Laxmi Ahmedabad 600,000.00 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred in the course of business. It is the decision of the assessee to look into the business affairs diligently and take the decision accordingly after considering the prevailing competition in the market. 14.2 However, the Ld. CIT(A), disregarded the contention of the assessee by holding that the assessee failed to furnish the necessary details about the services rendered by the consultants as discussed above. 14.3 Likewise, the identity of the parties to whom the consultancy expenses have been paid were not furnished. Therefore, the same has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 15. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 16. The Ld. AR before us submitted that all the parties to whom th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
