TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 431
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., January 2014, December 2014, March 2015, October 2015, December 2015 at the request of the assessee. It is also found that in June, 2015 the case had to be adjourned as none appeared on behalf of the assessee. In the letters dated 26. 6. 2013, 20. 1. 2014, 12. 12. 2014 and 10. 12. 2014 adjournments were sought on the ground that partner of the C. A. - firm, handling the case, was out of town. Considering the above, we are deciding the appeal on the basis of available material. 2. Assessee-company, engaged in the business of ceramic tiles and trading in bath accessories filed its return of income on 29. 10. 2005 declaring total income of Rs. 8. 89 crores under the normal provisions of the Act and at Rs. 44. 98 crores u/s. 115JB of the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....found that ATL had not rendered any service to the assessee. Therefore, he asked the assessee to show cause as to why the amount of Rs. 35. 00 lacs should not be disallowed and added to its income. He also asked the assessee to furnish details of loan taken from IDBI Bank through ATL and to explain nature of services rendered by it along with the supporting evidences. After considering the submission of the assessee, dated 16. 11. 2011, the AO observed that the assessee had furnished copies of invoices only, that the invoices did not prove that the substantive services had been rendered by ATL, that the assessee had made general submissions without any documentary evidences, that furnishing of the copies of sanction letter did not justify t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee had paid the money under the guise of commission, that merely giving payment through account payee cheques did not make the transaction genuine. He referred to the case of Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (208 ITR 465). The AO also referred to the cases of L. H Sugar Factory and Oil Mills (P) Ltd. (125 ITR 293), Chandravilas Hotel (164 ITR 102), Calcutta Agency Ltd. (19 ITR 191), Transport Corporation of India Ltd. (256 ITR 701) and Imperial Chemical Industries(I) Pvt. Ltd. (74 ITR 17). The AO disallowed the commission payment amounting to Rs. 35 lacs u/s. 37(1) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the FAA. After considering the submission of the assessee and the assessment order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the material before us. We find that the assessee had claimed incurring of expenditure of Rs. 35. 00 lacs under the head commission payment, that it had claimed that ALT through its ex-director had arranged loan from IDBI and HSBC, that AO had made enquiries about services rendered by ALT for the said payment, that the assessee did not produce chronology of events which could firmly establish the genuineness of the transaction, that the FAA confirmed the order of the AO and upheld the disallowance. We further find that IDBI bank had specifically mentioned that there was no middle-man/liaison officer for sanctioning/ disbursing of loans. The bank has verified that employee of the assessee had participated in loan sanctioning process. It is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, signify quantum of expenditure and the motive /object/ purpose of the expenditure respectively. Neither before the AO nor before the FAA the appellant had produced any evidence establishing the facts that the said expenditure was directly incurred for the purposes of the business carried on by the assessee. Even after the disallowance was made by the AO, the assessee choose not to produce any positive evidence before the FAA to establish the fact of incurring of expenditure and rendering of services by ALT. Before us also, no such evidence was furnished. It is said that no structure can be made without a foundation. In the case before us, the foundation itself is missing. Both the authorities have given a finding of fact that proof of ....