TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 1311
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in disallowing the commission expenses to the extent of Rs. 16,71,310/- being wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and being paid by Account Payee cheques on which the commission agents have duly included the commission in their income, paying income tax (2 of 7) [ITA-290/2010] thereon? ii) Whether the ld. ITAT is justified in charging double tax on the same amount by disallowing the commission expenses in the hands of the Appellant Firm and at the same time charging tax on commission income in the hands of the commission agents? 3. Counsel for the appellant has taken us to the order of the Tribunal and pointed out that all the persons whom the payment was made of commission was in view of the fact that the business of ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) Ltd. 69 CTR (Tribunal) 109 (Hyd.) Accordingly the AO made the addition of Rs. 26,98,130. 4. As per the Tribunal order the RCM was more than three crores. In that view of the matter, the assessee was required to make payment and the net profit which was earlier four time, business has gone only because of RCM grant and expenses and therefore, he contended that the expenses which are permissible are required to be allowed. 5. However, counsel for the respondent has taken us to the order of the CIT(A) which reads as under:- I have considered facts of the case and arguments taken by Sh. Agarwal quite carefully. After going through the details of such commission claim it is seen that a payment of Rs. 3,62,504/- has been claimed in the name....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idence of any nature regarding services provided by Sh. Sandeep Dheer in various capacities could be furnished either in assessment proceedings or in appellate proceedings for which in the different capacities significant commission claim of Rs. 11,14,455/- has been made and therefore, I fully agree with the assessing officer that Sh. Sandeep Dheer has ot provided any genuine services for which commission payment have been claimed by the appellant to him of Rs. 11,14,455/- and therefore, the disallowance of commission to this person in different capacities is hereby confirmed. Similarly, when the letter was issued u/s 133(6) to Sh. Rakesh Agarwal then he has confirmed that his regular business was in trading of precious stones like Emerald ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has claimed to have worked. Considering these inconsistencies and unbelievable assertions I fully agree with the assessing officer that no genuine work/services were provided by Sh Rajbeer Mohanlal Agarwal to whom commission claim of Rs. 1,06,565/- and by Smt. Anju Agarwal Prop. Of Gaurav Enterprises to whom commission claim of Rs. 2,38,878/- was claimed to have been made particularly when they were having experiences of Namkin Factory and packaging was with them how it is possible that his couple will work as manufacturing supervisor particularly when they could not recollect even the name of labourers, telephone number of the factory and locational address of the factory. Moreover, in a period of 2 months genuinely also no production supe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roceedings or in the appellate proceedings for which (6 of 7) [ITA-290/2010] the commission payment has been claimed in the name of Sh. Kartik Khandelwal. With this discussion in my considered view the assessing officer was justified in disallowing said commission claim of Rs. 2,11,412/- which is hereby confirmed. With this discussion total disallowance of commission in the name of various 6 persons/ entities to the extent of Rs. 16,71,310/- is hereby confirmed. However, it is seen that when notice u/s 133 (6) was issued to Sh. Hansraj Banthia he confirmed that he worked as commission agent but he could not appear in response to summon issued u/s 131 of I.T. Act. Similar was the case with Sh. Vikas Bansal who has also confirmed that he was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Rs. 10,09,044/- was a genuine commission and without any proper evidence against the appellant the AO has disallowed said commission which was not justified and therefore, the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 10,09,044/- out of commission claim is hereby deleted. 5. He contended that in view of the observations made in that (7 of 7) [ITA-290/2010] para where after considering the evidence, the CIT(A) has partly allowed to the extent of Rs. 10,09,044/- and found it to be genuine and only Rs. 16,71,310/- which were found to be doubtful which has not been presented before the authority and the same was disallowed. 6. We have heard counsel for both the sides. 7. Taking into consideration that the business has gone almost four time and pa....