9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the month of February, then certain amount is shown as advance received in the hands of the assessee, which is shown as advance from customers in the balance-sheet. It is also his submission that assessee is following this method since past so many years. From the order of the lower authorities, we find the assessee has not even filed the bank statement details to substantiate that the said amount has in fact been received from Samsung India Electronics Private Limited. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore this issue to the file of the AO with a direction to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate with evidence to his satisfaction that the amount was in fact received from Samsung India Electronics Private Limited only and not from any other person - Ground allowed for statistical purposes. Addition being commission paid - HELD THAT:- We find the AO in the instant case made addition being commission paid to Mr. Mukesh Bathla and Ms. Sangeeta Bathla since, the assessee failed to substantiate with evidence to his satisfaction regarding the above commission. The ld. CIT(A) sustained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate the submission that it is practice since from the incorporation of the company that the proportionate receipt had always been carried forward related to the subsequent year. The facts are also placed on the record the carried forward amount Rs.46,22,000.21 has been shown as income in the relevant Asstt. year under appeal. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of providing holiday vouchers which entitle the customers to have discount on hotels, airlines and other travel related services to the extent of coupons allotted to them. It filed its return of income on 21.09.2013 declaring total income at Rs.37,50,110/-. The AO asked the assessee to justify for treating the sum of Rs.76.62 lakhs as an advance from Samsung India Electronics Ltd. along with copy of agreement for the same and also a confirmation from Samsung India Electronics. In response to the same, the assessee vide reply dated 29.02.2016 submitted as under:- Deal with Samsung was to give them a holiday voucher which entitled it s customer who bought laptops and printers a discount on hotels, airlines and other travel related services. There is a validi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the same was incurred. 7.3 I have considered the submission of the appellant and the documents, placed on record.'At the outset, before me also no confirmation from Samsung India was placed on record. Nor even the appellant furnished any bank account details to substantiate that the said amount was received from Samsung India only. There is no record available, which is an independent record, not in control of the appellant company to substantiate that the amount of Rs. 76,62,000/- was received from Samsung India and the same is an advance and was also treated by Samsung India as advance paid to the appellant., 7.4 Having said so, even if the issue is examined on the basis of the documents submitted, like ledger accounts and invoices raised by the appellant company to Samsung India, there is no plausible reason as to why the revenue is not to be recognised in the captioned year and why it is deferred for future years. It is not the case as if the vouchers have an expiry and after expiry the appellant has to refund back the amount. Once the amount is received by the appellant company and there is no clause of refund of the amount at a later stage, the amount has to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act made addition of the same to the total income of the assessee. We find the ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. It is the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the AO and the ld. CIT(A) without properly appreciating the nature of business done by the assessee and the accounting method consistently followed has made the addition which is not correct. According to the ld. Counsel for the assessee when the payment is made by Samsung India Electronics Private Limited it becomes revenue expenditure in their hands but if the assessee gives the vouchers over a period of ten months or so and when the advance is received in the month of February, then certain amount is shown as advance received in the hands of the assessee, which is shown as advance from customers in the balance-sheet. It is also his submission that assessee is following this method since past so many years. From the order of the lower authorities, we find the assessee has not even filed the bank statement details to substantiate that the said amount of Rs.76,62,000/- has in fact been received from Samsung India Electroni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the assessee has paid commission in lieu of sale of Samsung Laptop and printer, which is not the business of the assessee. He therefore asked the assessee to justify the commission paid to the above two parties and produce the above two persons for necessary submission and verification. The assessee produced Mr. Mukesh Bathla whose statement was recorded by the AO. On being questioned by the AO to explain the nature and service provided by him, it was stated by Mr. Bathla that commission was given by the assessee company as he introduced Mr. Uday from Samsung India to Mr. Sagar (Director of the assessee company). However, Mr. Bathla did not elaborate the exact nature of services provided by him in order to justify the commission received. Further, when asked about Mr. Uday, Mr. Bathla did not give any detail/contact no. of Mr. Uday. Subsequently, vide the order sheet entry dated 14.03.2016 the AR of the assessee was given the copy of statement of Mr. Bathla and was requested to give the details of Mr. Uday. However, no such details were filed by the assessee. In view of this the AO held that the assessee company could not justify the payment of commission of Rs.8,10,000 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wever, nothing of such sort was furnished on record to substantiate that how such introduction took place. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that Mr. Mukesh Bathla, who is claiming to introduce Mr. Uday from Samsun India, does not have his coordinates and details. 6.5 Before me the appellant submitted that it was difficult at that point in time to furnish the details of Mr. Uday in a short span of time, however, even as on| date, no details were even furnished before me. 6.6 In view of the above, since the appellant has failed to discharge his onus to substantiate rendition of the service on account of which commission was paid, the genuineness of the said expense is not established. Hence the addition amounting to Rs 13,30,000/- ( Rs 8,10,000/- + Rs 5,20,000/-) made by the AO is sustained and upheld. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are dismissed. 14. Aggrieved with such order, the assessee in appeal before the Tribunal. 15. The ld. counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that when the expenditure has been laid out or expended wholly and exclusi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO at para 3.2 of the order reads as under:- 3.2. In response to the above query the assessee vide the letter dated 09.11.2015 filed two invoices raise by Mr. Mukesh Bathla Mrs. Sangeeta Bathla. In both the invoices, it was mentioned that the commission has been given on sale of Samsung India Electronics Laptop and printer. It was surprising to see that the assessee paid the commission in lieu of sale of Samsung laptop and printer, which is not the business of the assessee and therefore these payment of commission raised a suspicion on the genuineness of this transaction. 18. We find subsequently when the AO confronted the assessee, the assessee filed the bills raised by above two persons against Samsung. Even the confirmation from the assessee to the above two parties says the commission on sale. The assessee is changing the stand for reasons best known to them. Even though they have received commission for introducing Mr. Uday of Samsung to the assessee, these two persons do not have details of Mr. Uday. Further, Ms. Sangeeta Bathla refused to appear before the AO. The findings given by the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) could not be controverted by the ld. counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
