TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 720
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of natural justice. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE: 2.1The ld. CIT (A) erred in partly confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,44,237/-, made by the A.O. comprising of payments by way of commission, professional fees and contractor / sub - contractor charges, by invoking the provisions of section 40 (a) (ia) of the Income -tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"]. 2.2.While doing so, the A.O. failed to appreciate that, the Tax deducted at source on the above payment was paid into Government treasury before due date of filing of return of income under section 139 (1) of the Act. 2.3.It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such disallowance was called for. 3.1.The ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. whereby the A.O. made a disallowance of Rs. 24,37,510/- being the clearing and forwarding expenses paid by the Appellant, by invoking the provision of section 40 (a) (ia) of the Act. 3.2.It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such disallowance was called for. 4.1.The ld. CIT (A) erred in conf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; (i) basing his action purely on surmises, conjecture and suspicion; and (ii) by taking into account irrelevant and extraneous considerations wale ignoring relevant and material considerations. 6.4.It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, disallowance was called for. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any the above grounds at the time of hearing. 2. Assessee-firm, engaged in the business of Cargo clearing and forwarding subagent, filed its return of income on 11-10-2005 declaring total income at Rs.24,50,902/-. Assessment was finalised u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961(Act) by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 26-12-2007 determining total income of the assessee at Rs. 82.48 Lakhs. 2.1. Before us, Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that Ground of Appeal No. 1 was general in nature. He did not press Ground No.5. So, we dismiss both the Grounds i.e., Ground Nos. 1 & 5. 3. Ground Nos. 2, 3 & 4 of the appeal are about disallowance made by the AO u/s.40(a) (ia) of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, AO found th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot justified in disallowing the same by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Disallowance made by the AO to that extent was directed to be deleted. 3.3. Regarding clearing and forwarding charges paid of Rs. 24,37,510/-, he held that appellant could not rebut the findings of the AO that the TDS deducted and paid into the loan account was beyond the time prescribed under the Act, that findings of the AO were not rebutted by the appellant by furnishing the documentary evidence, that the AO was fully justified in disallowing the same by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, that non-deduction of tax at source on the payment made in respect to Rs. 5,17,328/- was also not rebutted by filing any details or supporting evidences. Finally, he held that entire addition made on that account was justified. 4. Before us, AR submitted that tax deducted was deposited in Government account before due date of filing the return of income, that AO and the FAA did not consider the amended provision of the Section 40(a)(ia), that matter needed to be looked into afresh Departmental Representative (DR) supported the orders of the FAA. 4.1. We have heard the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t year. Considering the 'Disproportionate Increase' in the claim of Commission payment and in the absence of any evidence to justify the claim, the commission payment made to the above three parties amounting to Rs. 10,43,849/- plus 20% of balance commission payment which worked out to Rs 7,76,485/- was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee by the AO. 5.1. Against the order of the AO assessee preferred an appeal before the FAA. He requested the FAA to admit additional evidence in this regard. He, after considering the submissions of the assessee and the assessment held that the appellant had failed to furnish either the confirmations or to produce the parties concerned, that sufficient opportunity for this purpose was given to it by the AO. He refused to admit additional evidences filed by the assessee. He finally held that the AO was fully justified in disallowing the claim of the appellant regarding the alleged commission paid of Rs.10,43,849/- to three parties i.e. Shri Janet D'souza, Verinica John Rodrigues and Anil V. Patel. 5.2. Before us, AR submitted that that the AO had failed to appreciate that the appellant had sought to produce two parties befor....