Shri Pawan Nagaria, Jhansi V. ITO, Jhansi

ITA 329/AGR/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6953 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 06-07-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2007
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S R SAHU

Judgement Text

1 ITA 329-07 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH : AGRA. ( BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA AND SHRI P.K. BANSAL ) ITA NO. 329/AG./2007 ASSTT. YEAR : 2005-06. SHRI PAWAN NAGARIA, VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 97/8, CIVIL LINES, JHANSI. WARD 6(2), JHANSI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.R. SAHU, JR. D/ R ORDER PER R.K. GUPTA, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A)-II, AGRA RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS OBJECTING CONFIRMATION OF ADDITI ON OF RS. 2,79,520/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING O FFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED COMMISSION EXPENSES OF RS. 4,9 8,665/-. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE IS A LIC AGENT AND BY SELLING LIC POLICIES IN THE NAME O F VARIOUS PARTIES, THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED COMMISSION INCOME FROM LIFE INSURANCE CORPOR ATION OF INDIA. AGAINST THE LIC COMMISSION INCOME, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED SOME CO MMISSION EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 4,98,665/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO GIV E FULL DETAILS AND SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM OF COMMISSION PAID. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE THE DETAILS OF 2 COMMISSION PAID. A SUM OF RS. 2,08,210/- WAS SURRE NDERED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED AND ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE THE DETAILS OF PERSON S TO WHOM THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID. ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE FULL DETAILS A ND SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. EVEN ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF CERTAIN PERSONS TO WHOM COMMISSION WAS PAID. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID BY ASSESS EE. THE LD. CIT (A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISPOSED OFF AFTER CO NSIDERING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ARGUMENT OF THE D /R. THE LD. D/R PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER AND LD. CIT (A), WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A) HAS BEEN RECORDED IN PARA 2.5 AT PAGES 5 & 6 OF THE ORDER ARE AS UNDER : - 2.5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, SUBM ISSION OF AR AND POSITION OF LAW, IN MY OPINION, APPELLANT DESERVES TO FAIL. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED COMMISSION EXPENSES OF RS. 4,98,665/-, WHEN ASKED TO FURNISH FULL DETAILS AND SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM APPELLANT F AILED IN FURNISHING EVEN THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF CERTAIN PERSON TO WHOM COMM ISSION/BROKERAGE WERE PAID AND ACCORDINGLY HE SURRENDERED RS. 2,08,2 10/-. THE FACT THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT IN POSSESSION OF EVEN COMPLETE AD DRESS OF THE COMMISSION AGENT AND HE IS NOT ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE CLIENT OR CUSTOMER PROCURED BY THEM CLEARLY INDICATE THAT APPELLANT CL AIM OF EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD COMMISSION/BROKERAGE IS UNVERIFIABLE AND I NADMISSIBLE, SUBSEQUENTLY ON VERIFICATION, ASSESSING OFFICER CON CLUSIVELY PROVED THAT COMMISSION PAID TO SMT. GEETA NIM, SANGEETA JAIN, D AKSHA AGARWAL & 3 SHRI ASHOK NIM IS ALSO NOT IN REFERENCE OF ANY BUSI NESS SOLICITED BY THEM. SHRI ASHOK NIM WHO IS A SALARY EARNER FROM M/S. SAN KAR CHAPPAL, JHANSI WAS TOTALLY IGNORANT ABOUT ANY LIC SCHEME PREVALENT IN THE MARKET. IT IS HIGHLY UNBELIEVABLE THAT A PERSON WHO DOES NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT LIC POLICY AND VARIOUS SCHEME WILL BE ABLE TO PROCURE T HE BUSINESS FOR APPELLANT. THOUGH, HE IS CLAIMING THAT HE INFLUENCE D HIS NEIGHBOUR FOR INVESTMENT IN LIC POLICIES BUT WHEN ASKED TO IDENTI TY THE CLIENT HE WAS UNABLE TO MENTION EVEN A SINGLE NAME WHO HAS PURCHA SED LIC POLICIES THROUGH HIM. SIMILARLY, GEETA NIM WHO IS WIFE OF SH RI ASHOK NIM WAS NOT EVEN AWARE OF HER OWN LIC INVESTMENT. SHE CATEG ORICALLY DENIED THAT SHE HAS VISITED ANY SCHOOL, COLLEGE, BUSINESS INSTI TUTION FOR SOLICITING LIC BUSINESS. THOUGH SHE CLAIMED THAT SHE HAS RECEIVED RS. 18,000/- AS COMMISSION FROM THE APPELLANT, HOWEVER, SHE WAS UNA BLE TO FURNISH ANY DETAIL OF BUSINESS SOLICITED BY HER. SHE HAS NOT ID ENTIFIED A SINGLE CLIENT REFERRED BY HER AND SHE IS ALSO NOT AWARE ABOUT THE BASIS ON WHICH COMMISSION OF RS. 18,000/- WAS PAID TO HER. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT NEITHER IN THE PRECEDING YEAR NOT IN SUBSEQUENT YEA R SHRI ASHOK NIM & SMT. GEETA NIM HAS CARRIED OUT ANY COMMISSION BUSIN ESS. SIMILAR IS THE SITUATION IN THE CASE OF SMT. SANGEETA JAIN & SHRI DAKSHA AGARWAL. ALL THESE ALLEGED COMMISSION AGENT ARE CLAIMING THAT TH EY HAVE REFERRED THEIR NEIGHBOUR, FRIENDS AND PARENTS OF CHILDREN TAKING T UITION TO THE ASSESSEE, YET NONE OF THEM WERE ABLE TO FURNISH THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF EVEN A SINGLE CLIENT. FACTS OF THE CASE SHOWS THAT APPELLA NT HAS UTTERLY FAILED IN SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM OF THE EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD COMMISSION/BROKERAGE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 4,98,665/ -, I, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITIES IN ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER O N THIS COUNT, APPELLANTS GROUNDS ARE THUS REJECTED. 4 THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A) ARE FINDING OF FACT . THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A). THEREFOR E, WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. 5. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16. 04.2010 SD/- SD/- ( P.K. BANSAL ) ( R.K. GUPTA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AGRA, DATED : 21/04/2010. D/- COPY FORWARDED TO :- THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT THE CIT (A) CONCERNED. THE D/R, ITAT AGRA. GUARD FILE (ITA 329/AG/2007) BY ORDER, AR ITAT AGRA.