TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 1012
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the assessee at Rs. 22,50,098/-. 3. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the part addition. Now the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT by taking following grounds of appeal: "1. Disallowance of Brokerage expenses Rs. 408223: That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) 5th has grossly erred in law and facts by confirming disallowance of brokerage expenses of Rs. 40,8223/- without appreciating the true facts of the case and further without providing opportunity of being heard. 2. Disallowance of packing expenses Rs. 42625/- That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) 5th has grossly erred in law and facts by confirming disallowance of Rs. 42,625/- out of packing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ersons namely Sh. Manoj Kumar Agarwal, Sh. Shyam Agencies, Sh. Dinesh Kumar Khator and Sh. Satish Machiwal. The assessee produced only two persons namely Sh. Manoj Kumar Agarwal, and Sh. Satish Machiwal. The Assessing Officer made the addition, which has been sustained by the ld. CIT(A) by holding as under: 2.3. I have considered the facts of the case, the assessment order and the submission of the A/R, the brief facts are that the assessee is engaged in trading and manufacturing of sugar products, for which he purchases damaged sugar which he converts into sugar products and sells the same. The assessee claimed to have paid brokerage on purchases as well as sale of sugar and sugar products. The AO asked the assessee to produce fou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made on purchase as well as sales and payment for the same had been made by cheques after deducting TDS thereon. After carefully considering the statement of Sh. Satish Machiwal, I find that there are several anomalies therein as far as the claim of brokerage on sales is concerned. Firstly, the said broker is actually an accountant and claims to have worked for only 2 years as a broker, which casts a doubt on his capacity to render such services. Secondly, he has not maintained any accounts of brokerage due and brokerage received. No bill has been raised by him. There is no evidence regarding actual services being rendered by him. Moreover, he has named certain parties for whom he procures goods. Out of these parties, only 2 parties viz. Sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that namely Sh. Satish Machiwal has specifically stated that he has worked for the assessee as broker during the relevant financial year. Further Shri Manoj Agarwal, whose statement was also recorded, has also stated that he has been paid brokerage on the sales affected to various persons, whose names were mentioned. He has further submitted that all the payments of the brokerage were through account payee cheques and the necessary TDS was also deducted. 5. On the other hand, the ld Sr.DR has vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 6. I have heard both the sides on this issue. The assessee has made the payments to the dalals through cheques. The TDS was also deducted. The income tax details of the persons to whom the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was required between the months of April, 2009 and October, 2009 and that around 90% of bardana purchase is in the second half of the financial year, despite the fact that sales figure in the corresponding period is approx. 50% of annual sales. Thus bardana purchases appear to be inflated in the second half of the year. Moreover, being made in cash, these expenses are amenable to inflation particularly when the bills/letterheads are similar indicating that the concerned parties might have acted in concert with the assessee. The assessee has also not discharged the burden of proving the said expenses. Considering all these facts, disallowance of 20% of the packing expenses, made by the AO is justified and is accordingly upheld. 8. I have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssible element of personal use, the AO has disallowed 10% of these expenses as under:- 1. Telephone expenses Rs. 4706/- 2. Travelling expenses Rs. 30278/- 3. Vehicle and Running expenses Rs. 5670/- 4. Depreciation on car Rs. 5296/- Total Rs. 45950/- 4.2 I have considered the facts of the case, the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. The AO has disallowed 10% of the claimed expenses and depreciation due to the element of personal use being undeniable more so in the absence of separate record of these expenses. Considering the non maintenance of separate record and also the undeniable possibility of personal element, the disallowance of Rs. 4706/-, Rs. 3....