TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 269
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der section 37 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties through video conferencing and perused the material on record. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that return declaring income of Rs. 2,58,31,030/- was filed by assessee which was processed under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The case was reopened under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The A.O. decided the objections of the assessee separately. The A.O. during the assessment proceedings noticed that assessee has paid and debited a sum of Rs. 1,58,91,312/- as payment on account of sub-brokerage fees to M/s. Taral Vincom Pvt. Ltd., [Name changed to M/s. Linkpoint Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,]. The assessee was asked to give de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e light of information emanating from the search in the case of Shri Praveen Agarwal for booking the expenditure. The A.O. accordingly disallowed the impugned amount of Rs. 1,58,91,312/-. 3.1. The assessee challenged the addition before the Ld. CIT(A). The detailed written submissions of the assessee is reproduced in the appellate order in which the assessee briefly explained that assessee is in the business of real estate. The impugned amount was paid as sub-commission / sub-brokerage which was laid out expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Shri Praveen Agarwal did not mention about issue of any bogus bill to the assessee. Such statement did not refer to any activity of the assessee. His statement is not corrobora....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Group Company, the addition have been deleted, therefore, on identical facts, the addition needs to be deleted. The Ld. CIT(A) considering the issue in detail and documentary evidences on record, deleted the entire addition. The findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in para-5.2 of the Order is reproduced as under : "5.2. I have carefully perused the submissions of appellant and the remarks of assessing officer on this ground of appeal in the assessment order. The assessing officer has considered the reply filed by assessee on 22.02.2016 in response to notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) in which the details of cheques of Rs. 1,58,91,312/- issued by assessee in favour of M/s Taral Vincom Pvt. Ltd. as commission (sub-brokerage). The appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h M/s Taral Vincom Pvt. Ltd. is bogus. The assessing officer had a very good reason for suspicion, but that suspicion could not be held to be true in the light of evidence furnished by assessee. Nowhere in the assessment order has the assessing officer pointed out any defects in the books of accounts and the same have not been rejected u/s 145(3) of the I.T. Act. The Ld. AR of appellant has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in B.K. Khanna & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 705,709 Delhi. In the light of principles laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in B.K. Khanna 86 Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 705,709 Delhi, I hold that the addition of Rs. 1,58,91,312/- is not warranted. The same is therefore, deleted." 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee. The assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that in the Group case of M/s. Reach Promoters Pvt. Ltd., an identical issue have been considered by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of the same broker M/s. Taral Vincom Pvt. Ltd., in the light of statement of Shri Praveen Agarwal and addition have been deleted. It would, therefore, show that Shri Praveen Agarwal did not make any allegation against the assessee of taking any bogus commission / brokerage in the matter. The statement of Shri Praveen Agarwal have been recorded at the back of the assessee and was never confronted to the assessee for explanation or cross-examination on behalf of the assessee. No such fact is discernible from the assessment order. Even this point was raised before the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ness of the documentary evidences filed by the assessee on record. The A.O. merely following the information received from the search of Shri Praveen Agarwal, disbelieved the explanation of assessee, but, such fact cannot be read in evidence against the assessee as noted above. Further it may be noted that assessee has declared substantial income in the return of income and filed return of income at Rs. 2,58,31,030/- which have been accepted by the A.O. The books of account of the assessee have not been rejected. These facts, therefore, show that assessee declared substantial income in the return of income and has no reason to book any bogus expenditure so as to reduce the profit. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee placed on record financ....