Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 813 - AT - Income TaxBogus commission - CIT(A) deleted the addition - revenue asked to remand the matter for reconsideration - Held that:- In the absence of any cogent argument or reason canvassed before us by Revenue remand cannot be directed. In order to so direct atleast some shortcoming in the nature of evidences filed and consideration should have been pointed out so as to justify such a demand. A matter cannot be remanded for the mere asking. A perusal of the impugned order at page 8 shows that the major commission payment out of these 8 people has been paid to Sri Padma Sinha, Sri Nirmal Singh, Sri Daljit Singh Sandhu in whose case PAN details were made available and in the case of the remaining 5 people the confirmations alongwith their telephone numbers and address details were provided. Apart from that it is seen that the admitted fact consistently on record is that the commission has been paid to the persons after deduction of tax at source by way of account payee cheque. - Decided against revenue. Excess payment u/s 40A(2) (b) - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Carefully examining the working of the commission paid to Sh. Vipin Malhan is on the sales executed by him from 20.06.2001, the date of agreement between the company and Sh. Vipin Malhan. The sales effected by the company for the period up to 19.06.2001 has been reduced from the total sales while calculating the commission paid to Mr. Vipin Malhan. The order of the AO dated 28.02.2005 under appeal and the Remand Report submitted by him vide F.No. ACIT/Circle/Noida/Remand Report/06-07 dated 20.07.2006 have been examined very carefully. The AO has not expressed any doubt on the genuineness of the agreement executed between the company and Sh. Vipin Malhan and also on the system of payment of commission. The AO has not expressed any doubt on the services rendered by Sh. Vipin Malhan to the company. The AO has worked out commission on the figure of ₹ 2,40,24,500/- being income from web packages alone while the company has calculated the commission on reconciled sales. The copy of the statement showing working of the commission paid to Mr. Vipin Malhan had been sent to the AO along with the reply of the AR for his comments. However in the Remand Report submitted by the AO, find that the AO has not made any adverse comments on the working of the figure of the sales as arrived at and the commission of ₹ 29,35,002/- worked out at @ 10% of the total sales of ₹ 2,93,50,020/- besides the commission of ₹ 3,37,500/- paid as an associate member of the company. AO was not justified in making an addition of ₹ 8,88,052/- on this account to the income of the appellant. On a consideration of the entire factual matrix of the case which we have brought out in the earlier part of this order in great detail, we find in the absence of any rebuttal on facts no interference in the impugned order is warranted. In the facts as they stand for want of any contrary fact or argument the departmental ground is dismissed and the impugned order is upheld. - Decided against revenue.
|