9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... despite opportunity. Moreover, the new plank raised in set aside proceedings has also been correctly rejected by the ld. CIT(A). Firstly, the assessee could not have made a fresh claim and moreover the same also was only ipse dixit, without proper corroborative material. Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. - ITA No. 7758/Mum/2019 - - - Dated:- 27-4-2022 - SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by: None Respondent by: Ms. Usha Shrote ORDER Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai ( ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 09.10.2019 and pertains to the assessment year (A.Y.) 2010-11. 2. The grounds of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Network Pvt. Ltd. was never received back by the appellant either directly or indirectly. Hence the amount paid as commission to M/s. Aliance Intemediaries Network Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- should be allowed (Rahul Khania Vs. ITO (2308/Kot/2016) CIT Vs. Printer House P. Ltd. (188 ITR 70) 9. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and further as per submission made the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in disallowing the claim of salaries amounting to Rs. 10,50,000/- paid to the employees of the assessee. 10. The learned CIT(A) ought to have given due consideration to various documentary evidences filed at the time of assessment before AO. These documents includes confirmation statements of various employees, copy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... additional income in his hands for A.Y. 2010-11 which was over and above his regular income. Subsequent to the survey action, the assessee filed his original return of income on 26.03.2011 declaring an income of Rs.3,35,710/- Since, the assessee had not filed his return of income incorporating the disclosure made of Rs.35,00,000/- at the time of the search action, the AO issued notice u/s. 148 dated 03.09.2012. In response, the assessee informed that the original return of income filed on 26.03.2011 be treated as filed in response to notice issued u/s 148. The AO examined the return of the assessee and held that the aggregate expenses claimed of Rs.29,47,556/- on account sub- brokerage, salary etc., are not justified and after disallowing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by charging commission@ 0.15%, the AO held that the assessee's claim of sub-brokerage payment of Rs.12,50,000/- is bogus and again disallowed it. The AO also investigated the assessee's claim of expenses on account of salary incentives to staff after issuing summons to 4 out of the 6 employees involved. The investigations revealed that one of the employees Shri Indrapratap Singh had stopped working for the assessee from the year 2009 itself. In respect of the other 3 employees, it was revealed that they are filing their return after showing business income and are not showing any income on account of salary. The AO therefore held that the expenses claimed on account of salary incentives to staff are out that relevant to point a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were paid salary in cash and he cannot be penalized if the said employees rather than showing salary income in their returns have shown business income. 6. The ld. CIT(A) held as under: 5.3 The contentions of the assessee have been duly considered. As regards the disallowance of sub-brokerage expenses of Rs.12,50,000/-, it is observed that in accordance with the directions of the Hon ble ITAT, the A.O. allowed opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine Shri Mukesh Choksi. In the cross-examination, Shri Mukesh Choksi reiterated that a signed cheque book was given to the assessee and the assessee was allowed to operate the said bank account by charging commission @ 0.15%. It is noted that the assessee did not bother to cross examine S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w of the aforesaid discussion, no infirmity is found in the action of the AO of disallowing the assessee's claim of sub-brokerage expenses of Rs.12,50,000/- and of disallowing the salary of Rs.10,50,000/-. 7. Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 8. I have heard the ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short). None appeared for and on behalf of the assessee despite several notices. 9. Upon careful consideration, I find that the assessee has engaged into bogus penny stock transaction, and after our disclosure of amount has not duly honoured the same. The ld. CIT(A) as well as A.O. have passed a reasonable and well reasoned order after duly complying with earlier ITAT direction. Nothing is on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
