9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1032X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertificate from the Auditor acknowledging the mistake. However, before us the assessee has furnished certificate dated 15th February, 2019 issued by the same Auditor acknowledging the mistake in reporting the bonus paid to the employee. Of course, the assessee has filed the aforesaid document as additional evidence. As in case of M/s. Dalal Broacha Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. [ 2011 (6) TMI 251 - ITAT, MUMBAI ] after analyzing the provisions of section 36(1)(ii) has held that any sum paid to an employee as bonus or commission for services rendered has to be allowed as deduction as the reasonableness of the payment or adequacy of services rendered by the employee are not relevant factors in deciding the allowability of deduction. The Bench ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Respondent : Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 05.02.2019 of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-15, Delhi for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. In ground no. 2, the assessee has challenged disallowance of Rs.27,26,550/-, being deduction claimed under section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) for bonus paid to employees and workers. 2.1 Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed his return of income on 28.09.2013 declaring income of Rs.13,50,327/-. In course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer, while verifying the return of income and financial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals). 2.4 I have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. It is observed, in column no. 16(a) of the Audit Report, the Auditor has mentioned that the amount of Rs.27,26,550/- was otherwise payable to him as profits or dividend. Relying upon this note of the Auditor, the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee on account of bonus to employees. On a perusal of the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), it is observed, though, the assessee contended that it is a mistake committed by the Auditor in mentioning the deduction claimed at column no. 16(a) of the Audit Report instead of clause 21(b). However, learned Commissioner (Appeals) decline ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no finding that the employees are either partners or shareholders of the assessee. That being the case, assessee s claim has to be allowed. This ground is allowed. 3. The next issue arising in ground no. 3 relates to addition of Rs.4,56,000/- under section 68 of the Act. 3.1 Briefly the facts are, in course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer, while examining the balance-sheet noticed that in the year under consideration, the assessee had shown unsecured loan of Rs.4,56,000/-. Therefore, he called upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of such loan transaction. Alleging that the assessee failed to furnish the information called for to prove the genuineness of the loan transaction, the Assessing Officer added back ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
