Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 1612 - AT - Income TaxBrokerage and commission disallowance - AO made correspondence with the commission agents and required them to furnish name and address of buyers for whom they have executed commissioning work alongwith nature of services rendered and the basis of claim of commission - HELD THAT:- D.R. could not point out any specific error in the findings of the CIT(A) that at times commission agent when approaches the purchasers, he does not identify himself as an agent of the seller and merely identifying himself as representative of the seller, in such circumstances, the buyer cannot be aware that the person who has approached is employee of the seller or agent of the seller. CIT(A) observed that the commission may be paid to an agent for facilitating the trade even when the orders are directly given to the sellers by the purchasers. Non-service of letters to the buyers or non-compliance of the letters by the buyers does not show that the payment of commission was not genuine when the relative sale was considered genuine. Non-furnishing of the name of the buyers by agent in compliance to the notice does not necessarily mean that the agent is not aware of the buyers. In no situation commission can be earned by a person like HUF is also not tenable. We find that no material could be brought before us to show that the person to whom commission was paid were accommodation/entry provider and the money which was paid through banking channel to them came back to the assessee. Absence of any specific defect being pointed out in the order of the CIT(A), we find no good reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A), which is hereby confirmed and the ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
|