TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1038X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usiness consideration for the amount paid was not proved. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the authorities could have done independent verification from the students, cannot be accepted. On failure of assessee to provide the relevant details like father's name, postal address etc, it was not possible for the A.O. to have undertaken any such verification. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the authorities could have done independent verification from the students, cannot be accepted. On failure of assessee to provide the relevant details like father's name, postal address etc, it was not possible for the A.O. to have undertaken any such verification. - decided against assessee. - ITA No. 325 of 2017 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 29-8-2018 - MR AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR AVNEESH JHINGAN, JJ. For The appellant : Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate For The Respondent-Revenue : Mr. Vivek Sethi, Senior Standing ORDER AVNEESH JHINGAL, J. The assessee has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her along with their addresses. The list was not supplied by stating that hard disk of computer containing the relevant data had crashed. The A.O. was not convinced and disallowed 50% of expenses claimed i.e. commission paid by the appellant. Apart from other additions, A.O. made an addition of ₹ 40,65,000/- vide assessment order dated 26.12.2011. 4. Aggrieved of the assessment order, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short ' CIT (A)]. 5. In appeal proceedings, after availing two opportunities, the appellant was able to produce only 21 persons out of 43 to whom commission paid was claimed as expenses. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal vide order dated 04.08.2014 but disallowance of 50% of expenses of commission paid was upheld. The relevant portion of the order of the CIT (A) is reproduced below: On careful consideration of the rival contentions, I am of the opinion that the assessee has absolutely failed to prove that the recipient of commission has actually rendered any service to the assessee. None of the 42/13 recipients of commission could tell the complete particulars of even a single student which they have ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice to the assessee in lieu of receipt of commission. In view of these facts and in the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the assessee has absolutely failed to prove that the recipient of commission have actually rendered any service to the assessee in lieu of receipt of commission. It cannot also be said that there is no loss to revenue. There is certainly a loss to the revenue as commission has been taxed at lower rates in the case of majority of the recipients. Moreover, independent verification from students cannot be made in the absence of relevant details which have neither been provided by the assessee nor by the recipient of commission for the reasons best known to assessee. In my further opinion, the relevant details in respect of students were not provided just to thwart further verification at the end of Assessing Officer. I also endorse the view of the Assessing Officer that the books of amount maintained by the assessee are not reliable as these do not contain even the basic data with regard to complete particulars of students who have been sent abroad. 6. Further appeal was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xation by distributing the income in the hands of other persons having lower bracket of tax as the payees are individuals. We also observe from the findings of ld. CIT(A) that assessee had paid commission to the husband, daughter and other close relatives of asseessee. From the findings of authorities below we also find that the commission was paid to different members of a family. For example a commission of ₹ 4 lacs has been paid to members of Malhotra family all living at 24 Defence Colony, Jalandhar. Similarly, an amount of ₹ 5,60,000/- has been paid to three members of Kapoor family living at 131-A New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar. Similarly, an amount of ₹ 3,20,000/- has been paid to Gupta family living at 25, Golden Colony, Phase-I, Deep Nagar, Jalandhar Cantt. Further an amount of ₹ 3,00,000/- has been paid to Khanna family living at H. No.423/C, Street No.10, Near Samsung Service Station, Jalandhar and ₹ 17,20,000/- has been paid to Sud Family living at Civil Lines, Jalandhar. 9. Therefore, all these facts and circumstances prove that assessee had not incurred this expenditure for the purpose of business and therefore, were not allowable. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
