TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1271
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of trading of polyester. She filed her return of income on 30.09.2011 disclosing total income of Rs. 13,74,200/-. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has paid commission of Rs. 21,31,426/- to the following parties, the details of which are as under :- Sumit Goel : Rs. 117488/- Parmod Mittal : Rs. 436052/- Saurabh Garg (HUF) : Rs. 518005/- Suresh Goel :Rs. 141725/- Madhu Basia : Rs. 126170/- Anuj Jain : Rs. 407359/- Anuj Jain (HUF) : Rs. 388667/- 4. He issued notice u/s. 133(6) to which the parties confirmed that they have received commission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Goel in his reply has stated that he has obtained orders for the assessee from Lalani Industries & other parties. But it has already been stated that M/s Anuj Jain has already claimed that the entire sales of Rs. 22888593/- has been effected by him and commission @ 9% has been claimed by him. So, it w>as never clear as to how Shri Sumit Goel can again claim commission on the same sale. iv) Shri Suresh Goel in his reply has stated that he has received commission for obtaining orders for Ketan Polymers and Shri Ram Traders. 5. In view of the above the Assessing Officer held that the letters received from the above parties are not reliable for which he issued letters to various parties to whom sales were claimed to have been effect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee. 8. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under :- 6.1 I have gone through the assessment order, the reasoning advanced by the Assessing Officer while disallowing the claim of commission and the written submission filed by the appellant. 6.2 The Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim of commission by making an enquiry from parties to whom sales had purportedly been effected by the commission agents. Most of the letters issued by the Assessing Officer to the parties come back un-served and replies were received from M/s. Ketan Polymer, M/s. Multipac Industries both of whom stated that the transaction with the appellant did not involve any third party....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rences in the quantum of sales as per party wise detail of sales furnished and amount on which sales commission was claimed by the appellant. 6.7 Keeping in view the totality of the facts and findings of the Assessing Officer, which have not been rebutted by the appellant either in assessment or in appellate proceedings, 1 find the appellant has not been able to establish the claim of commission for rendering services in furtherance of its business as claimed by it. I find there is no nexus between payment of commission and the business of the appellant in view of which I sustain the addition of Rs. 21,35,426/- made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing the claim of commission. In the result, the appeal grounds are dismissed and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the other hand heavily relied on the order of the AO and CIT(A). He submitted that the Assessing Officer had brought on record clearly as to how the assessee has paid commission to various parties during the year whereas no such commission was paid in the immediately preceding assessment year. Further commission has been claimed by more than 1 broker for obtaining orders from the same party. Some of the suppliers have denied to have any involvement of any third party. He accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) being in accordance with law should be upheld. 12. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. I find th....