TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... previous year and the Appellant sold 4959 MT of soda ash and continued to make payment at the pre-agreed commission rate of INR 200IMT, which amounts to INR 9,91,800/- as commission. As evident from above, the hiring of agents resulted in an increase of approximately INR 45 Lakhs. In fact, during F.Y. 2010- 2011 (including December 2010 to March 2011), the average return of the Appellant on each MT of soda ash was approximately INR 11,066 (i.e. INR 5.76 Crore earned for the sale of 5205 MT). In contrast, due to the services provided by the agents, the average return of the Appellant on each MT of soda ash was approximately INR 12,522 (i.e. INR 6.21 Crore earned for the sale of 4959 MT). This is an increase of about INR 1,450 per MT of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sive commission paid to agents. 4. Because the appellant paid commission to agents not as a percentage of sales value, as has been presumed by the AO and the CIT (A), but as a unit of volume of sales achieved by him and thus the facts of the case have been wrongly interpreted. 5. Because the figure of commission paid in the previous year cannot be compared with the figure of commission paid during the year under appeal as commission was paid on volume of sales for a period of only 4 months in the previous year and for complete 12 months in the year under appeal. 6. Because the submissions placed on file have not been considered, judicially in the order and the appeal dismissed summarily denying justice to the appellant. 7. Becau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed commission @ 0.67% (relevant to A.Y. 2011-12) at ₹ 515116/- i.e. disallowed balance commission of ₹ 436684/- and assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹ 31,44,130/- vide his order dated 27.6.2014 passed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order dated 27.6.2014, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 22.3.2016 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by confirming the addition of ₹ 4,36,684/-. 5. Against the aforesaid order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. Counsel of the assessee has stated that assessee paid commission to agents not as a percentage of sales value, as has been presumed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les of soda ash itself increased between the two financial years. During the F.Y. 2010-2011, due to recurrent issues related to quality of product of soda ash-a by-product (not paper-a virgin product) which often required the Assessee to intervene personally at any point of time as the process of the user is continuous, the Assessee appointed various agents in the month of December 2010 and the Assessee fixed the commission rate of the agents at INR 200/MT of soda ash. It is pertinent to note here that irrespective of the price at which the Assessee sold the soda ash to the customer, the rate of the commission payable to the agent was constant at INR 200/MT. During F.Y. 2010-2011, the Assessee sold a total of 5205 MT of soda ash. During the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
