TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e controversy involved in appeal. The power of the appellate authority is like a inherent power which can be exercised suo-motu without any application from any of the contesting party. And in order to follow the principles of natural justice or fair play, Appellate Authority can ask for the any detail which are relevant for the disposal of the an appeal. Commission agent to overseas commission is concerned as per Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in TOSHOKU LIMITED (AND ANOTHER APPEAL) [ 1980 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS for any payment which is made to overseas agent. And we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). However, we refuse to entertain the present appeal. Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 3,94,14,339/- of the Act. 4. And in support of its contention, assesse cited a judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of CIT vs. Toshoku Limited (125 ITR 525) wherein it is held that the commission agent who does not carry out any business operation in India and acts as a selling agent outside India is not chargeable t tax in India and that the receipt in India of the sale proceeds remitted by the purchasers from abroad did not amount to an operation carried out by the non-resident commission agent in India as contemplated by clause (a) of the Explanation to Section 9(1)(i) of the Act. And Hon ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the commission amounts which were earned by the non-resident for services rende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid to overseas agent and domestic agents vide letter dated 11/03/2013. 7. After considering the above said additional evidences, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the Ld. A.O. of ₹ 3,94,14,339/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 8. Now revenue has come before us and challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 9. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied on the order of the A.O. 10. We have heard both the parties and have given thoughtful consideration. Apart from overseas commission expenses, revenue has also challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in admitting additional evidence filed by the assesse. 11. Rule 46-A contemplates that Ld. CIT(A) may admit any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, we refuse to entertain the present appeal. 14. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 15. Now we come to ITA No. 3412/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12, Revenue has taken following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld.CIT (A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 6,43,52,553/- u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of non-deduction of tax on commission payment to overseas agents. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored to the above extent. 16. Since facts and circumstances o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
