TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 837
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls) is erroneous both on facts and in law so far as it is prejudicial to the appellant. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance of Commission payment of Rs. 14,16,938/-. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in considering the fact that, the commission was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business". Ground No. 4 is general in nature. 2.1. In the course of proceedings, assessee raised additional grounds as under: "1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in following the order of the ITAT for the A.Y 2008-09 without appreciating that the payees are different and no statements have been recorded. 2. Having initiated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."We acknowledge the receipt of Notice issued u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 requiring us to furnish return of income for the Asst. Year 2007-08. With regard to that, we are submitting the following for your kind consideration. We have submitted original return of income on 20October, 2007 vide E filing acknowledgement no. 1475660201007 and copy of acknowledgement is filed before your goodself on 31October, 2007 vide Inward No. 0655001657. At the time of submitting the original return of income, we have claimed deduction u/s. 80IB and filed the e-return of income and paid the taxes thereon. On verification, we came to know that, some interpretational differences may arise in the deduction claimed u/s. 80IB. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncore Cements Ltd., Vs. ACIT and Another [305 ITR 170] (Ker); ii. Vipan Khanna Vs. CIT and Others [255 ITR 220] (P&H); On merits of the disallowance, he fairly conceded that similar disallowance in AY. 2008-09 has been confirmed by the ITAT which Ld.CIT(A) followed. Para 5.3 of the Ld.CIT(A)'s order is as under: "5.3. It may not be out of place to mention here that a similar addition on account of commission payments was made for the A.Y. 2008-09, and this was upheld by the CIT(A) and on further appeal by the assessee, the Hon'ble ITAT Hyderabad vide order dated 18.5.2012, in ITA No. 2017/hyd/2011 and ITA No. 2016/hyd/2011, examined the issue of commission payments and upheld the addition made on account of commissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub - section (2) of section 148]". As per this explanation the Assessing Officer can bring to tax any other income which has escaped assessment and which comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer in the course of the proceedings under this section. I place reliance on the cases of CIT Vs Mehak Finvest (P) ltd 52 taxmann.com 51 (Punjab & Haryana) (2014) and Majinder Singh Korg Vs. CIT Panjab & Haryana High Court (2012) 344 ITR 358 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Travancore Cements Ltd., Vs. ACIT and Another (supra) are also similar, following the principles laid down in the cases of Vipan Khanna Vs. CIT (supra) and CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd., (supra). The provisions of Section 147 permits the AO to assess or re-assess the income which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section. So long as the income escaped assessment for which reasons were recorded has been assessed, then AO has power to include other incomes which has escaped assessment and which comes to his knowledge in the course of the proceedings under this section. As already stated above, the re-assessment proceedings were initiated for the purpose of denying....