TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6, the respondent/assessee claimed commission payment of Rs4,70,04,000/- as deduction under the head commission/discount . No details of the alleged payments were furnished to the Assessing Officer, who therefore, disallowed the entire amount. It was noted by the Assessing Officer that in the Assessment Year 1993-94, the Assessing Officer had disallowed such payments to the extent of Rs 1,61,35839/-. In an appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that details of the commission paid along with necessary evidence were not furnished during assessment proceedings in spite of specific opportunity given by the Assessing Officer. He was of the view that since it was the assessee who had claimed this expenditure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by it for tax on the ground that the same was reversed in assessment year 1998-99. The balance amount was disallowed by the Assessing Officer finding that the assessee had not furnished any details regarding commission and discount payment. However, in the appeal filed by the assessee, CIT (A) following his order for the assessment year 1995-96, reduced the addition to Rs 38,10,251/-. In the appeal filed by the Revenue, the Tribunal noted that the expenditure claimed by the plaintiff comprised export commission of Rs 12,70,409/-, which was deleted for the assessment year 1995-96. Rs 13,88,334/- towards District Officer Commission which was allowed for the assessment year 1995-96 and brokerage on TELCO bills amounting to Rs 94,987/- and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... possible that the commission/discount paid during the previous assessment year (s) was not paid during assessment years in question or the payment was not to the extent claimed by the assessee. It was obligatory for the assessee to produce relevant evidence before the Assessing Officer to prove the alleged payments, particular when it was specifically called upon to do so and an opportunity was subsequently given to it for this purpose. Once it was found that the onus of proving the alleged payment on the assessee and he had not produced any evidence to prove those payments, neither CIT(A) nor ITAT could have allowed these payments, without having any material before them to substantiate such payments. The CIT(A) as well as the ITAT, in ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
