TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 412
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Rs. 3,77,040/-. This return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 17.1.2012. The assessee, thereafter, revised the return on 30.3.2012 and declared total income at Rs. 9,71,910/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment and notice under section 143(2) was issued on 31.7.2012. The assessee at the relevant time was working as a plant operator with Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. He derived income from salary, income from other sources and income from commission. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed that the assessee has received an amount of 10,79,871/- as commission. The assessee has claimed expenses of Rs. 4,85,000/- against this commission income. The ld.AO has called for details of the commission income a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e commission claimed to have been paid to such agents. 4.3.1. Now during the course of the current appellate proceedings, the AR has submitted that the appellant had filed complete details of commission paid along with the name, address, PAN and copy of return of all three sub-agents. It was also claimed that in the return of income filed by all three sub-agents, amount paid by the appellant was declared as commission income. No enquiry was made by the AO and he disallowed the claim on surmises. 4.3.2 As already reproduced above, the appellant was asked vide this office letter dated 30/01/2015 to furnish the name and address of the persons to whom the appellant had paid commission along with complete details of services re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter obtaining same from the appellant. This clearly shows that appellant has no details available with him of alleged services rendered by these sub-agents. The details of dates of payments along with amounts also could not be submitted. Besides the perusal of the bank statement furnished by the appellant shows that the appellant had made huge cash withdrawals. Also there are several bearer cheques issed to one Mr. Mitesh H Waghela. Hence without prejudice to whatever has been stated above, it is evident that the appellant, even if he has actually made any payment to these subagents, has made such payments in cash and hence is not providing the details, as the same may entail disallowability as per the provisions of section 40A(3). Even the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing such claimes, the Assessing Officer has found that the appellant named the two entities, namely, M/s.Panjon Pharma and M/s.Suvidha. Therefore, the Assessing Officer called upon the appellant to prove the nature of the services provided by these two entities and with their details. The Assessing Officer found, as a matter of fact, that the details were furnished, save and except the nature of the services........... 15. We are of the opinion, that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, therefore, did not commit any error and rather applied the correct test in reversing the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appellant has not been able to discharge the burden and it is not impossible. It is a primary onus and which wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ismissed." 5. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee contended that the assessee has paid sub-brokerage to three persons viz. Niranjan Adroja, Jigneshkumar K. Mashiyava and Jayebhai J. Parmar. All these persons have experience in marketing and selling of different products. He submitted copies of affidavits tendered by these persons and their copies of the return. According to the ld. counsel for the assessee, these persons have shown the alleged commission income received from the assessee in the return of income. Affidavits have been filed before the ld.CIT(A). Thus, the recipients have confirmed the receipt of commission from the assessee. On the strength of these evidences, the ld.counsel for the assessee contended that the paym....