2009 (8) TMI 10

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... unt claimed by the assessee. The assessee declared a total income of only 1.43 crores on a turnover of Rs.55,45,91,631/-. The declared gross profit rate was 54.15% and the net profit rate was only 1.93% - CIT(A) allowed expenditure at 14% - ITAT increased it to 16% - Assessee claimed at 18-20% - ITAT order maintained.
A. K. SIKRI and VALMIKI J.MEHTA, JJ. Mr. Ajay Vohra, Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. Amit Sachdeva and Mr. Sriram Krishna, Advocates, for the appellant. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. Arvind Vasova and Mr. Mohan Prasad Gupta, Advocates, for the respondent. JUDGMENT VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. - This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 29.8.2008 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (I.T.A.T). A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ly 1.93% which showed that the expenses are unreasonably inflated. It was noticed that in the past also on various grounds, disallowance was made of different amounts from the expenses claimed towards payment of commission. The assessee challenged the order before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) increased the amount of expenditure allowed from Rs.1,21,55,213/- to 3,69,05,109/-. The CIT(A) noted that onus is on the assessee to prove that the commission has been paid for rendering the actual services and it was found in the instant case that the asseseee had not furnished credible evidence in the form of name, addresses etc. of the person to whom commission was paid. The CIT (A) also noticed that none of the persons who were paid commission were br .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he I.T.A.T duly noticed that the additional factor in that year under consideration was that both the AO as well as CIT(A) have made a detailed enquiry to highlight the improbability of the payments claimed by the assessee and thus, it was a just case to deviate from the consistent method claimed to have been followed earlier. In view of the facts of the case, especially with regard to paying of TDS, only for an amount of Rs. 1,21,55,213/-, out of the total expenditure, claimed of Rs.11,45,47,937/-; the fact that none of the recipients were produced; various transactions were questionable; extremely low figure of net profit as compared to the gross profit; the fact that there were dis-allowances also in the earlier years and so on, the I.T. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X