9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 1172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the arguments made by them for AY 2008-09 will be equally applicable for AY 2009-10 and therefore both the appeals can be heard together. We therefore proceed to dispose off both the appeals by this consolidated order by taking the facts and grounds for AY 2008-09. 3. The facts as culled out from the orders are as under: Assessee is an individual engaged in the business of trading in electronic items under the name and style of Meet Marketing . He electronically filed his return of income for AY 2008-09 on 30.6.2008 declaring total income of Rs.10,40,520/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 27.12.2010 and the total income was determined and assessed at Rs.50,40,52 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d legitimate tax liabilities. She thereafter considered the amount of expenses of Rs.14,79,397/- as reasonable and remaining amount of Rs.40 lacs as unjustifiable and excessive and disallowed the same. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee deleted the addition by holding as under: 2.14 The Ld. Counsel had also brought on record that the commission payment made to Shri Amil K. Patel had duly been offered by him as his income and the same has been taxed in his hands on substantial basis. The Assessing Officer should have consider this aspect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court case of Glaxo Smithkline (Asia) (2010) 47 DTR 65 (SC), as relied upon by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tially and he was able to add new areas and new dealers for the business. The Assessing Officer had not brought any material on record to justify her stand for disallowing the commission payment of Rs.40,00,000/- and thereby, the disallowance so made is deleted. The first to ninth grounds of appeal are accordingly allowed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us. Before us, the Ld.D.R pointed to the observations and findings of the AO and submitted that the AO after detailed verification has come to the conclusion that the amount of commission paid was excessive and therefore she has rightly made the disallowance. He thus supported the order of the AO. In the alternate, he submitted that a reasonable disa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usiness and Shri Amit Patel was the de facto owner of the assessee s business. He has also noted that assessee s turnover has gone up from Rs.9.21 crore to Rs.15.02 crore, new clients were added and the assessee s firm had received star performer awards from the Principal Company and therefore he has given a finding that the capabilities and professional qualities of Shri Amit Patel cannot be doubted. We further find that CIT(A) by his detailed and well reasoned order has met with every objections of the AO. The findings of the CIT(A) could not be controverted by Revenue by bringing any contrary material on record. Before us, the Ld.A.R. has submitted that since the assessee and his brother. Shri Amit Patel are both assessed to tax at the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
