TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce Telecom Limited making it clear that the corresponding e-re-charges amount involved a sum of ₹ 235,11,268 including commission of ₹ 113,06,268/- and re-charge(s) figure of ₹ 122,05,000/-; respectively as per the relevant understanding between the parties. There is no rebuttal to this clinching fact coming from the Revenue s side. The assessee has also placed on record the relevant details of all the corresponding re-charge transactions. There is no prayer coming from the department side that the assessee s certificate having placed on record all these documents is factually incorrect. Assessee has also placed on record profit and loss account at page 104 in the paper having disclosed net profit on turnover @ 6.92% no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a distributor and commission agent in telephone / mobile services. He runs his proprietorship business in the name and style of M/s Saha Communication in Parulia. The assessee had claimed the impugned sub-agent of ₹ 2,35,11,268/- to have been paid to various sub-agent(s) whilst carrying out distribution and commission agent business in communicative services. The Assessing Officer inter alia noted in his assessment order that he had failed to file the corresponding books of account regarding the impugned sub broker re-charges payments despite having beingafforded various opportunities on 19.11.2015, 18.12.2015, 13.01/.2016 25.01.2016 08.02.2016, 16.02.16 as well as on the date of assessment (supra). This made the Assessing Officer to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itself, the number of times the appellant has been afforded opportunities and which he has not availed of. The appellant has been variously asked to produce books of account, supporting material, documents in support of expenses debited in the profit and loss account, show cause notice etc. The appellant, it is documented, has not availed of any opportunity and has been trying to procrastinate in order to avoid submitting evidence, which, it can only be inferred, he does not possess. In view of this, it cannot be understood how and on what basis the ape is suggesting that he was not afforded ample opportunity. This ground therefore stands dismissed. Ground 2: The appellant has suggested that the order was made without applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loss account. The only submissions that the appellant made in this context was that in the profit and loss account the commission amount of ₹ 2.35,11,268/-, was paid to sub agents from the original commissions which he received from the company amount to ₹ 2,60,45,250/- as per bank transactions. The AO once against records that no supporting documents were produced by the appellant. Even in these circumstances of the appellant steadfastly not producing any details, the AO was more than lenient and moderate, in disallowing only 15% of these expenses. In these circumstances, the basis for the appellant s agitation cannot be understood. The order of the AO is hardly excessive or arbitrary, but in fact is in conformity with the prin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e transactions his pages 2 to 96 of the paper book. There is no prayer coming from the department side that the assessee s certificate having placed on record all these documents is factually incorrect. 6. We proceed further to note that the assessee has also placed on record profit and loss account at page 104 in the paper having disclosed net profit on turnover @ 6.92% not identify any abnormal trend vis- -vis earlier and latter assessment years. This tribunals co-ordinate bench order in ITA No.1464/Kol/2014 Gouranga Sundar Mondal vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1) Burdwan decided on 07.09.2018 also appears to have deleted identical disallowance in similar telephone income / mobile services distribution and commission business on the bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the AO in making addition of ₹ 62,27,292/-. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the letter of the Aircel dated 08.02.2012 wherein the Aircel has clarified the fact that it had paid commission of only ₹ 3,17,699/- to the assessee and ₹ 65,12,658/- was remitted to the retailers in the form of recharge commission, activation charges by Aircel on behalf of the assessee. That letter dated 08.02.2012 of the Aircel to the assessee explaining the facts is reproduced below: 5. We have crossed checked the figures and find it to tally with the figures of P L Account and other letters earlier on record. From a perusal of the P L Account, we note that the assessee has shown the commission received from Aircel to the tune of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
