9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) and ld Assessing Officer is quite illegal, arbitrary, excessive, without any basis and based on guess, conjecture and surmises." 2. The sole ground of assessee's appeal is against confirming the disallowance of Rs. 10,70 lacs on account of commission paid. The assessee is engaged in the business of export of stones. The assessee firm filed its return on 29/09/2009 declaring total income of Rs. 46,16,790/-. The case was scrutinized U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). The ld Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had paid commission at Rs. 33,92,594/-. It was seen that the assessee had paid commission to various persons at various rates which varied from 2.6% to 17.50% which was not found justifiable. It was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aper and had been prepared only after the assessee was confronted to substantiate its claim and therefore, same could not be treated authentic. The agreement had neither been witnessed by any third party nor attested by the Notary public. The agreement simply mentioned the names only but address of none of the so called recipients of the commission had been mentioned. The assessee had also tried to prove the relation of the recipient of the commission with the buyer but the same clearly showed that it was simply a fabricated one. The assessee had not put forth any documentary evidence which could prove these commission payments as genuine. The assessee had simply claimed these expenses in order to reduce its tax incidence by merely claiming ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that this group of nine persons helped in introducing the customer to the appellant through someone based in Musket. Appellant also submitted that payment was made by cheque after deducting TDS and commission @13.5% was paid to them of their insistence since higher profit margin was there in this deal. During appeal hearing, it was specifically asked as to what services were rendered by the group of these nine persons and to submit evidence in respect of rendering of services by them. However no details or evidence in this regard were submitted. There is no reference of any of the person to whom commission was paid with sale correspondence with the buyer. It was accepted by the AR in appeal hearing that there is no evidence exce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dingly, I have no hesitation in holding that the claim of commission in the name of nine persons for one sale is nothing but an attempt to reduce taxable income. Claim of commission in the name of these parties is not allowable since appellant has not discharged its onus to prove the rendering of services by these parties. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the assessing officer is confirmed." 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. The ld AR of the assessee has reiterated the arguments made before the ld CIT(A) and further submitted that the assessee is an exporter firm. The commission had been paid on sale made to M/s Dyurat Al Sahil, party of Muscat, who were constructing a hotel and wanted material for this project. They are no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
