9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in the manufacture of PCB board for Telecom purposes. In the Profit and Loss A/c for the assessment year 1995-96 it had shown a payment of commission of Rs. 87,53,183 and for the assessment year 1996-97, a sum of Rs. 99,10,589. The commission was claimed to have been paid to one M/s. SLF Industries Ltd. The Assessing Officer wanted the details of the commission paid along with names and addresses of the persons and the Directors of the company to whom the commission was paid. The assessee was also called upon to disclose the nature of services rendered and as to how the services so rendered helped the assessee in improving its sales. 3. The assessee claimed that M/s. SLF Industri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not in a position to give the names of contact person of M/s. SLF Industries Ltd. The Assessing Officer observed that the commission paid was nothing but an adjustment entry. He also made enquiries from DOT and MTNL but there was no confirmation from them as to whether M/s. SLF Industries Ltd. acted as a liaisoning agent for the assessee. Further, the assessee could not furnish the address of M/s. SFL Industries Ltd. and the notice sent by the Assessing Officer to the address given by the assessee remained unserved and as such Assessing Officer drew adverse inference against the assessee for non furnishing the new and correct address of M/s. SLF Industries Ltd. Thus, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Income-tax Authorities to file the requisite particulars and produce the concerned person for verification/examination. The assessee did not submit any confirmation from the DOT and MTNL because DOT and MTNL were not directly involved. With regard to the names and addresses of the persons with whom the assessee interacted, it was stated by the assessee that there has been a lot of changes in the structure of M/s. SFL Industries Ltd. and details and whereabouts of the employees of M/s. SFL Industries were not available with the assessee. The assessee even did not file the copy of relevant bank account of M/s. SFL. The assessee also failed to explain as to what was the nature of the services provided by M/s. SFL, and no correspondence i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the assessee by M/s. SFL and informing about the procurement of two orders on behalf of the assessee would not be sufficient to enable the assessee to claim the deduction in question. The fact that M/s. SFL was in a different line of business again throws some suspicion on the claim made by the assessee. As per the terms of the agreement to pay Commission, M/s. SFL was only to procure orders whereas in the letter dated 30-11-1994 the assessee calls upon M/s. SFL to resolve other disputes regarding deferment of supply by DOT, Bangalore. Besides the above, there is not even correspondence and list of orders procured for assessment year 1996-97. Considering the facts and circumstances and the evidence available on record, we are of the view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
