TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 513
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ised in the instant appeal seeks to reverse both the lower authorities action disallowing / adding 15% of the sub-agent commission involving payments of Rs. 2,35,11,268; coming to Rs. 35,26,690/-; in the course of assessment framed on 08.03.2016 and affirmed in the CIT(A)'s order under challenge. 3. We advert to the relevant facts and find that the assessee / individual is a distributor and commission agent in telephone / mobile services. He runs his proprietorship business in the name and style of M/s Saha Communication in Parulia. The assessee had claimed the impugned sub-agent of Rs. 2,35,11,268/- to have been paid to various sub-agent(s) whilst carrying out distribution and commission agent business in communicative services. The Asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is found, upon a study of the grounds of appeal that: Ground 1: This ground agitates the lack of opportunity being given to the appellant and therefore it being prejudicial to him on account of deprivation of natural justice. As study of the am order belies all such contentions as the AO has sufficiently documents, in the body of the order itself, the number of times the appellant has been afforded opportunities and which he has not availed of. The appellant has been variously asked to produce books of account, supporting material, documents in support of expenses debited in the profit and loss account, show cause notice etc. The appellant, it is documented, has not availed of any opportunity and has been trying to procrastinate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, submitted an audit report, profit and loss account and bank statement. Despite the AO asking for them, the books of account were not produced. No vouchers, supporting documents etc. were produced. Finally, he was asked by the AO to substantiate the sub-broker point re-charges amounting to Rs. 2,13,57,878/- debited in his profit and loss account. The only submissions that the appellant made in this context was that in the profit and loss account the commission amount of Rs. 2.35,11,268/-, was paid to sub agents from the original commissions which he received from the company amount to Rs. 2,60,45,250/- as per bank transactions. The AO once against records that no supporting documents were produced by the appellant. Even in these circumsta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommission of Rs. 113,06,268/- and re-charge(s) figure of Rs. 122,05,000/-; respectively as per the relevant understanding between the parties. There is no rebuttal to this clinching fact coming from the Revenue's side. The assessee has also placed on record the relevant details of all the corresponding re-charge transactions his pages 2 to 96 of the paper book. There is no prayer coming from the department side that the assessee's certificate having placed on record all these documents is factually incorrect. 6. We proceed further to note that the assessee has also placed on record profit and loss account at page 104 in the paper having disclosed net profit on turnover @ 6.92% not identify any abnormal trend vis-à-vis earlier and la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....receive any reply from the Aircel made the addition of Rs. 62,27,292/- and concluded the assessment vide order dated 31.12.2010. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) taking note of the letter date 28.12.2010 of Aircel was pleased to make an enhancement of Rs. 2,85,366/- as well as confirmed the action of the AO in making addition of Rs. 62,27,292/-. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the letter of the Aircel dated 08.02.2012 wherein the Aircel has clarified the fact that it had paid commission of only Rs. 3,17,699/- to the assessee and Rs. 65,12,658/- was remitted to the retailers in the form of recharge commission, activation charges by Aircel on behalf of the assessee. That letter dated 08.02.2012 of the Aircel to the assessee explaining the facts is ....