TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 69
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lved in both the appeals is identical, they were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, we will take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.733/Chd/2012 and the decision given in this appeal will apply to other appeal of the assessee in ITA No.443/Chd/2015 mutatis mutandis. ITA No.733/Chd/2012 : AY-2009-10 2. The only ground raised by assessee reads as under : "That order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-ll, Ludhiana is against law and facts on the file in as much he was not justified to arbitrarily uphold the action of the Ld.Assessing Officer in disallowing commission amounting to Rs. 23,31,537/-as busin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g returns of income they got cheques of commission from the assessee and returned back the amount in cash. The AO therefore concluded that no services had been rendered by the agents and no commission had actually been paid by the assessee. He therefore disallowed the commission expense of Rs. 23,31,537/- treating the same to be bogus expenses. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) upheld the disallowance made holding the expenses to be bogus in the absence of any evidence of services rendered by the agents and further since the assessee could not rebut the findings of the Assessing Officer. 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the CIT (Appeals) and stated that the commission expenses were genuine since i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns admitted that they returned cash to the appellant against the cheques received by them on account of commission payments. v) None of the person have knowledge about the power press machines nor any experience in the line of selling these machines. vi) All the persons stated that they had no links with the purchasing parties and met them incidentally. vii) The persons to whom commission expenses claimed to have been paid stated that they merely introduced the purchasing parties to the appellant. Thereafter no service were rendered by them. viii) Most of the purchasing parties were already known to the appellant. As such they did not require any introduction with the appellant. Even during the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it is my considered view that the AO was fully justified in disallowing the commission of Rs. 23,31,537/-. This ground of appeal of the appellant is accordingly dismissed. 9. We find that the Ld.CIT(A),on appreciation of the evidence on record has given a categorical finding of fact that no work was done by the agents for the assessee warranting payment of commission. This fact has not been controverted by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee before us. No evidence whatsoever has been produced before us contradicting this finding of the CIT(A).The only evidences on which the Ld. AR places reliance upon is the Income Tax Returns of the agents which do not establish that they had done any work for the assessee. Further the statement of the thr....