TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 1017
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sh issue. 3. Ld. DR is heard. 4. Since the cross-objection is only in support of the order of CIT(A), the same is infructuous and dismissed accordingly. 5. The Revenue's appeal raises following grounds: "(i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of commission paid amounting to ₹ 16,80,000/-. (ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made u/s 69A of the I.T. Act 1961 amounting to ₹ 7,81,585/-. The appellant craves the right to add or alter any ground of appeal." 6. Brief facts are: The assessee is engaged as agent of various companies for selling of industrial boilers. Regular books of account are ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The facts are that the appellant ha earned commission income to the tune of ₹ 60 lacs and has paid commission to the tune of ₹ 16,80,0001-. She has given the complete names and addresses of all the persons to whom she has paid commission. She has also produced copies of ITR acknowledgements and copies of bank statements of all the persons to whom she has paid commission. These evidences cannot be brushed aside by the AO simply on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises. The AO agrees in the assessment order that all requisite entries have been made in the books of accounts of the appellant. He also agrees that payments have been made by cheque and TDS has been duly d. ducted wherever such payments have been made. Howev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... High Court upheld the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Bench D, New Delhi in the case of the respondent for A.Y. 1997-98. Aggrieved, Revenue is before us. 10. Ld. DR contends that filing of income-tax returns of the recipients does not suffice the requirement as merely book entries do not prove the rendering of service and genuineness of payment for the same. With incometax returns, no other statements have been filed. Similarly, the actual nature of services rendered by sub agents have not been explained by the assessee. As actual rendering of services and their nature have not been established by the assessee, the burden cast on her to demonstrate the genuineness and business expediency of the expenditure has not been established. There....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion by the Id. AO before making this addition. I have also gone through carefully the assessment order passed by the AO, wherein he has stated that no proof of service tax paid was filed by the assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings. This is not totally correct as copy of service tax returns had already been placed on record by the appellant and the AO could have called for copies of the challans specifically. Therefore, finding merit in the submissions made by the appellant, the addition of ₹ 7,81,585/- to the income of the appellant is hereby deleted." 12. Apropos ground 2, ld. DR contends that the difference in service tax payment was not explained by the assessee properly. Therefore, assessing officer has rig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing evidence filed in support of payment of commission as a business expenditure incurred during the course of business. 14. Apropos ground no. 2 ld. Counsel contends that the service tax difference was clearly explained, reconciled along with the copy of service tax return and challan which is duly considered by CIT(A) in his detailed order, which should be upheld. 15. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the relevant material available on record. Revenue has not raised any ground for admission of additional evidence u/s 46A. Therefore, we are unable to accede to the plea of the ld. DR in this regard. 16. Apropos ground no. 1, the assessee is regularly assessed to tax, maintaining audited books of account. The commis....