TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 957
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the year-end. The receipt was claimed as by way of a technical advisor and sub-broker, though the nature of the business or activity was not mentioned. In verification of the claim of commission, notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act were sought to be sent to each of the six parties to whom the commission was claimed as payable. The status and the relevant details of the said proceedings are as under: Sr. No. Name Amount Remarks 1) Shri Saval Singh Rs. 4,43,575 Returned unserved. 2) Shri Mahesh Vyas Rs. 1,12,540 The assessee did not furnish address. 3) Shri Janardhan Thanvi Rs. 1,38,755 Did not comply with the notice. 4) Shri R. K. Thanvi Rs. 1,30,000 Did not comply with the notice. 5) Shri Dilip Purohit Rs. 1,21,450 Returned unserved. 6) Shri Gaurav Thakkar Rs. 7,00,000 The assessee did not furnish address. Total Rs.16,46,320 Confirmations, however, were furnished by the assessee from all the payees to whom the payments had been made by them, also adducing evidence as to payment. However, no reason for the payment of commission, or the nature of the services rendered, was stated. Also, no evidence in regard thereto was furnished. Unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he not do so, he proceeds to decide the appeal de hors the A.O.'s observations, and without seeking his remand report or his comments on the assessee's case as made before him. 4.2 Coming to the facts of the case, the issue qua the impugned disallowance that arises is as to the discharge or otherwise of the onus on the assessee to exhibit the impugned expenditure as having been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business. Toward this, we find the assessee to fail abysmally. He has even as much not as specified the exact nature of the services rendered, and from which he derives his professional receipt, as well as, correspondingly, the services availed of, and for which he had incurred commission expenditure. The A.O. is categorical in his observations in the matter (refer paras 4, 5 of the assessment order). There is, accordingly, no question of any material evidencing the services rendered or availed in respect of the commission expenditure. The position continues to obtain before the first appellate authority, as well as before us. The assessee before the ld. CIT(A) submits of being a technical advisor in the capital market, engaged in the continuous proce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., rendering them invalid. The assessee states of change of address in case of two parties, implying that he is aware of the fact of change, even though perhaps later, having also secured confirmations from the relevant creditors. However, we do not observe furnishing of their correct addresses by the assessee either before the A.O. or even before the ld. CIT(A). The claim of the creditors being out of station is, again, a bald claim, and not followed by any subsequent compliance. 4.4 We have already emphasized the complete absence of any material brought on record, despite abundant opportunity, at any stage of the proceedings, as to, both, the nature of the services or their being actually rendered. This, in fact, as shall be seen, is precisely the Revenue's case, as projected per its sole ground of appeal. The law in the matter is trite, and the onus to establish the expenditure as incurred for the purposes of business/profession is squarely on the assessee, and which is under the circumstances totally unproved. Further, even as the law in the matter is well settled, reference in this regard is made to the decisions by the hon'ble apex court in Lachminarayan Madan Lal vs. CIT [....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereat the assessee had agreed to undertake the repairs. Accordingly, the repair work was contracted to M/s. Technical Aspect, who stood paid by cheque on 27.09.2008, and had confirmed the payment. The assessee was following mercantile method of accounting, so that non-payment during the course of a relevant year itself would not be an impediment to deduction. The same stood allowed by the ld. CIT(A) on that basis. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal, raising the following ground: '2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of expenses on repairs and maintenances of Rs. 3,65,756/- by adducing that the expenditure incurred on the business premises was for the purpose of business, whereas the assessee is conducting business on rented premises and also failed to provide details of repairs on the said rented business premises.' 6. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 6.1 We are completely unable to appreciate the assessee's case which has since found favour with the ld. CIT(A). He says that the A.O. has not doubted the genuineness of the expenditure. How, we wonder, is doubt, then....