TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 738
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as commission expenses and franking charges respectively. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee had filed its return of income on 31.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 13,43,410/-. And revised return was filed on 05.03.2019 declaring total income at Rs. 11,41,840/- which was processed and accepted u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter "the Act"). Subsequently, the return was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The AO noted that the assessee is engaged in the business of arranging finance viz business loan, Home loan etc. As per the assessee, he gets customers from reference of old customers, from tele-caller services and from outside references etc. The AO noted that the assessee had received commission income to the tune of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion/referral fee, but there is no mention of the name of party/customer to whom services was rendered by the person who took the commission from assessee. According to the AO, the assessee failed to furnish such important details so that he could have appreciated the services rendered by the thirteen (13) brokers/parties. And since the assessee could not prove the services rendered by thirteen (13) brokers in lieu of commission paid by the assessee, he disallowed the commission payment to the tune of Rs. 44,36,581/-. Further, according to the AO, the assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence in support of his claim that franking charge were borne by him instead by customers. Therefore, the AO disallowed the franking charges incur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....penditure, the assessee submitted that in order to earn the commission income of Rs. 98,31,117/- he had taken the services of thirteen (13) parties, [the details of whom all were given to the AO including their name address, PAN etc]; and since thirteen parties (to whom commission were paid to the tune of Rs. 44,36,581/-) had referred customers/clients to the assessee, which resulted in him earning the commission income of Rs. 98,31,117/-, assessee pleaded for allowing the expenditure as business expenditure. However, the AO was of the view that assessee couldn't prove what services these thirteen (13) parties rendered to assessee for earning the commission of Rs. 44,36,581/- and therefore he disallowed the commission expenditure as well as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssion agents and details of which are seen from perusal of the page no. 7 of PB and it is further noticed that assessee had given the dates of payment, amount paid/debited, name of the commission agents and their PAN details [except in the case of brokers (i) Vinay Dube, (ii) Vidhya Joshi, (iii) Hitesh Rai, (iv) Shama Vinod (v) Varma Manoj (vi) Madhne Deepak Bhanushali (vii) Amisha Dhruv & (viii) Pramila Bhardwaj]. The Ld.AR under took before us that given an opportunity the assessee would be able to prove before AO that these commission agents had filed their respective ITR's and demonstrate that commission paid to these agents have been duly shown by them as income in their hands i.e, thirteen (13) commission agents. In such a scenario, w....