TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 475
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervices. 3. Ld CIT(A) has erred in arriving at the conclusion that no documentary evidence has been produced substantiating the claim of services rendered by TTPL. 4. Ld CIT(A) erred in not providing any opportunity to explain mistake in the calculation of commission pointed out by him in his order. 5. Ld CIT(A) has erred in treating payment to Sangeeta Chaudhary as appropriation of income instead of treating the same as compensatory in nature. 6. Appellant craves leave of the Court to add, amend aforementioned grounds of appeal that may be available to the appellant at the time of hearing. Prayer: 1. Additions of Rs.19,50,000/-, Rs.3,21,000/- confirmed by CIT(A) be deleted. 2. Pass such order as the Hon'ble court deem ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....marks "not known" and notice to M/s Sun Beam Pharmaceuticals came back un-delivered with the remarks "Tala Laga Rahta Hai". However, Smt. Sangeeta Choudhary replied through her counsel and stated that she had given an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- during financial year 2006-07 and had received a return of Rs.3,21,000/- on which TDS @ 5.20% was deducted. Since the independent confirmations from the above parties regarding receipt of commission and services rendered by them for alleged commission could not be received, the Assessing Officer gave final notice vide letter dated 4.11.2009 directing the assessee to produce principal officers of the firm/company so that those could be examined. The assessee vide letter dated 12.11.2009 submitted the fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before Ld CIT(A) and during appellate proceedings, the Ld AR agreed to produce representative of M/s TTPL and M/s sun Beam before Assessing Officer for verification and the issue was referred to Assessing Officer with specific directions to conduct certain enquiries. The Assessing Officer filed his interim remand report dated 7.5.2010 stating that the appellant has produced Shri RK Chabra for verification and in the case of M/s TTPL assurance has been given to produce the principal officer. Finally the Assessing Officer submitted remand report vide his letter dated 2.6.2010 which was made available to the appellant for filing rejoinder. The Ld AR filed the certificate of TTPL along wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that DCIT could have used coercive powers available to him to make independent enquiry from the party to whom commission was paid. Reliance was placed in the case of CIT v. Genesis Commet (P) Ltd. 163 Taxman 483 (Del.). wherein Hon'ble High Court had held that merely on the basis of non presence of the customers the claim of the assessee cannot be rejected. Reliance was also placed in the case of Mather & Platt (India) Ltd. 168 ITR 493 (Cal.) in which the Hon'ble Court had held that merely because a person is not found at an address after four years, it cannot be held that he is non existent. 8. Commission of Rs.3,21,000/-: The Ld AR submitted in the case of Smt. Sangeeta Choudhary that she provided funds to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s order is reproduced below:- "I have carefully considered the facts of the case, remand reports of the Assessing Officer and submissions and rejoinder of the appellant. Various documents furnished by the appellant whether before the Assessing Officer during remand proceedings or me are considered/taken into cognizance while adjudicating various grounds. I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant and perused the material on record. Here the fact is that appellant has failed to establish services rendered by TTPL with the documentary evidence though he was specifically required to do so by producing the recipients for verification. The appellant agreed to produce recipients for verification before Assessing Officer du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss of the expenditure. In respect of payment to Smt. Sangeeta Choudhary, he argued that she had accepted the receipt of Rs.3,21,000/- against loan of Rs.25,00,000/- and therefore it was a genuine business expenditure. The Ld AR further argued that in both case TDS was duly deducted and deposited into treasury. 15. The Ld DR, on the other hand, argued that the assessee could not produce the payee despite various opportunities and therefore he could not claim that expenses were genuine and therefore the Assessing Officer has rightly made the addition and Ld CIT(A) has rightly upheld the disallowance. 16. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the material available on record. We find that....