Tribunal dismisses appeals on commission payments and expenses lacking evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed all four appeals. It upheld the disallowance of commission payments by the former assessee due to lack of evidence of marketing services rendered. The Tribunal also confirmed the latter assessee as a non-genuine firm, disallowing its salary, travelling, and advertisement expenses for lack of substantiating evidence. Past acceptance of claims in previous years does not validate similar claims in subsequent years.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing appeals by both assessees.
2. Disallowance of commission payments by the former assessee to the latter assessee.
3. Determination of the genuineness of the latter assessee firm.
4. Disallowance of salary, travelling, and advertisement expenses claimed by the latter assessee.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing Appeals:
The former assessee's appeals suffered from a delay of 81 days, and the latter assessee's appeal was delayed by 12 days. The assessees filed condonation petitions citing extreme hardships in gathering the necessary information for filing the appeals. The Revenue did not rebut these claims. The Tribunal found merit in the condonation petitions and concluded that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, thus proceeding to adjudicate the appeals on their merits.

2. Disallowance of Commission Payments:
The former assessee, M/s. Asha Industries (India), had its commission payments to M/s. Tona Tab Agency disallowed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment years 1990-91 to 1992-93. The CIT(A) confirmed these disallowances, stating that M/s. Tona Tab Agency did not render any marketing services to justify the commission payments. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, noting that there was no evidence provided by the former assessee to substantiate the claim that marketing services were rendered by the latter assessee.

3. Genuineness of the Latter Assessee Firm:
M/s. Tona Tab Agency was held to be a non-genuine firm by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 1993-94. The CIT(A) affirmed this finding, noting that the firm did not provide any substantive evidence of having rendered marketing services to M/s. Asha Industries. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the latter assessee failed to prove itself as a genuine firm capable of rendering the claimed services.

4. Disallowance of Other Expenses:
The latter assessee's claims for salary, travelling, and advertisement expenses were disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) confirmed these disallowances, stating that no documentary evidence was provided to support the claims. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, noting that the latter assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the expenses claimed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed all four appeals. For the former assessee, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission payments due to a lack of evidence proving that marketing services were rendered. For the latter assessee, the Tribunal upheld the finding that it was a non-genuine firm and confirmed the disallowance of salary, travelling, and advertisement expenses due to insufficient evidence. The Tribunal reiterated that each assessment year is a separate unit, and past acceptance of claims does not automatically validate similar claims in subsequent years.

---