Sun Infraa, Hyderabad v. The Addl. CIT, Range-6, Hyderabad

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1667/HYD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 M/S. SUN INFRAA HYDERABAD [PAN: ABCFS2833A] VS THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-6 HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI V. RAGHAVENDRA RAO AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI A. SITHARAMA RAO DR DATE OF HEARING : 15-09-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-09-2016 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH A.M. : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV HYDERABAD DATED 31-07-2012. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH R EFERENCE TO DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS. 25 05 885/ - PAID TO ONE SMT. B. BHAGYALAXMI DURING THE YEAR. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAG ED IN SCREENING GRADING PROCESSING AND TRADING OF MINERA L AND HIRING OF MACHINERY. AS IN EARLIER YEAR 2008-09 ASSESSEE CLA IMED COMMISSION PAYMENT BUT TO ONE PERSON SMT. B. BHAGYALAX MI OF I.T.A. NO. 1667/HYD/2012 M/S. SUN INFRAA :- 2 -: RS. 25 05 885/- AS AGAINST THE COMMISSION OF RS. 2 3 0 73 945/- PAID IN AY. 2008-09 TO VARIOUS PERSONS INCLUDING SMT. BHAGYALAXMI. IN LINE WITH THE EARLIER YEAR THE ASSES SING OFFICER (AO) NOTED THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT JUSTIFY THE ABOVE C OMMISSION PAYMENT BY FURNISHING VARIOUS INFORMATION. AO ALSO I SSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IN WHICH HE HAS REFERRED TO THE STATEMENT R ECORDED FROM SMT. B. BHAGYALAXMI IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE AY. 2008-09. HE ALSO LISTED OUT TH E REASONS FOR DISALLOWING THE COMMISSION AS UNDER: (I) THERE ARE NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH THE PARTIES TO WHOM COMMISSION WAS PAID; (II) THERE IS NO WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE WITH THESE PARTI ES REGARDING THE CUSTOMERS INTRODUCED BY THEM AND SALES EFFECTED; (III) THE ASSESSEE CANNOT IDENTIFY PARTY WISE LIST OF CUS TOMERS INTRODUCED BY THE SAID PARTIES. IT WAS GIVING A VAGUE REPLY T HAT ALL THE CUSTOMERS WERE COLLECTIVELY INTRODUCED; (IV) THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SPECIFY TONNAGE DETAILS OF S ALES EFFECTED THROUGH EACH OF THE COMMISSION AGENT; (V) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT ALL ITS CUSTOMERS WERE IN TRODUCED BY ALL THE AGENTS WHEREAS THE LIST OF CUSTOMERS FURNISHED BY SMT. BHAGYALAXMI WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CLAIM; (VI) IN A NUTSHELL THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY D OCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE SERVICES RENDERED AND CO ULD NOT ALSO PRODUCE THE BASIS FOR COMMISSION. 2.1. IN RESPONSE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT COMMISSION W AS PAID TO SMT. B. BHAGYALAXMI IN CONNECTION WITH SMOOTH CARRYING AND PROMOTION OF BUSINESS. IT WAS REITERATED THAT THE NATUR E OF IRON-ORE BUSINESS REQUIRES ASSISTANCE OF MIDDLE-MEN AND FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT COMMISSION WAS PAID THROUGH ACCOUNT-PAYEE CHEQUES WHICH WERE CLEARED THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS ONLY. IT WAS F URTHER I.T.A. NO. 1667/HYD/2012 M/S. SUN INFRAA :- 3 -: SUBMITTED THAT SMT. B. BHAGYALAXMI HAD A PAN CARD AND HA D OFFERED THE INCOMES AND CONFIRMED THE SAME. REJECTIN G ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS AO IN TANDEM WITH EARLIER YEAR AND REFERRI NG TO VARIOUS DECISIONS HELD THAT THE COMMISSION PAYMENT IS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S. 37 OF THE ACT. HE GAVE SIMILAR FINDIN GS AS IN AY. 2008-09 WHILE DENYING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. 3. LD. CIT(A) ON CONSIDERING ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AND NOTING THAT ITAT IN AY. 2008-09 HAS UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE O F COMMISSION CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF AO. HIS ORDER AT PARA 6.8 ONWARDS ARE AS UNDER: 6.8 FINALLY IT WAS HELD IN THE APPELLATE ORDER TO THE A.Y. 2008-09 THAT NEITHER THE APPELLANT NOR THE ALLEGED AGENTS C OULD PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SCOPE OF S ERVICES EXPECTED TO BE RENDERED NOR COULD THEY FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE TO ES TABLISH THAT ANY SUCH SERVICES WERE ACTUALLY RENDERED. BESIDES THE PARTI ES COULD NOT PUT FORTH ANY SECONDARY OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ALSO IN SU PPORT OF SUCH CLAIM. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE HAD GROSSLY FAILED TO DISC HARGE THE ONUS OF ESTABLISHING ITS CLAIM WITH EVIDENCE. ACCORDINGLY IT COULD BE SAID THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE ARE NOT SUCH AS COULD BE ESTABLISH THAT THE CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF COMMISSIO N HAD BEEN LAID OUT OR EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE APPELLANT'S BUSINESS DURING THE YEAR. ACCORDINGLY THE ENTIRE C OMMISSION PAYMENT CLAIMED IN THE A.Y. 2008-09 WAS DISALLOWED HOLDING THAT THE SAME OR ANY PART THEREOF COULD NOT BE SAID AS PROPERLY DEDUCTIB LE U/S. 37 OF THE ACT. 6.9. IT IS SEEN THAT THE FACTS OBTAINING IN THE A.Y . 2009-10 ARE IDENTICAL. EVEN IN THIS YEAR THE APPELLANT HAS NO T BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SCOPE OF SERVICES NOR HAS IT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT SUCH SERVICES WERE INDEED RENDERED BY SRNT. B. BHAGYALAXMI. NO PRIMARY OR SECONDARY EV IDENCE HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM AND THE APPELLANT HA S THEREFORE AGAIN FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF ESTABLISHING ITS CL AIM WITH ANY VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE. 6.10 ON THE OTHER HAND ' IT IS SEEN THAT IN THEIR D ECISION IN THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL IN ITA NO. 2117/HYD/2011 FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09 DTD. 18.5.2012 THE HON'BLE ITAT HAVE ALSO OPINED THAT I T IS A SETTLED LAW THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLIS H THAT ANY EXPENDITURE IS I.T.A. NO. 1667/HYD/2012 M/S. SUN INFRAA :- 4 -: INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THEY NOTICED THAT IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE THERE WAS NO WRITTEN A GREEMENT WITH THE RECIPIENTS. THEY OBSERVED THAT EVEN IF THERE WAS NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT THE APPELLANT COULD HAVE CLAIMED DEDUCTION PROVIDED IT ESTABLISHED SUCH CLAIM WITH DOCUMENTARY AND COGENT EVIDENCE. HOWEVER IN T HE APPELLANT'S CASE THERE WAS NOT EVEN AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE REGARDING RE NDERING OF ANY SERVICES FOR PROCUREMENT OF BUSINESS NOR COULD THE APPELLAN T PRODUCE ANY CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS COULD HAVE SE RVED AS A CONTEMPORANEOUS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. THE HON'BL E ITAT ALSO TOOK NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO THE EFFEC T THAT THE RECIPIENT PARTIES EVEN KNEW THE PARTIES TO WHOM THE SALES WER E MADE. THEY HELD THAT THE JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT WER E NOT APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLANT'S CASE AND MERE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AFTER DEDUCTION OF TDS COULD NOT ABSOLVE THE ASSESSEE FROM DISCHARGING THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE BUSINESS PURP OSE. THE HON'BLE ITAT ALSO REFERRED TO THE DECISIONS IN THE CASES OF DAVI NDER SINGH VS. ACIT (104 LTD 325)(ASR) CIT VS. CALCUTTA AGENCY LTD. (19 ITR 191)(S.C) LAKSHMIRATAN COTTON MILLS CO LTD. VS. CIT (73 ITR 6 34)(S.C) AND L H SUGAR FACTORY & OIL MILLS (P) LTD. VS. CIT (19 CTR )(S.C) 185: (1980) 125 ITR 293 (S.C). THEY HAVE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISIO N OF THE HON'BLE DELHI BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF ROGER ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. VS. DCIT (88 ITD 95) FOR DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT. 6.11 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION FINDING NO IN FIRMITY IN THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE DISALLOWANCE O F CLAIM OF COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS. 25 05 885/- IN THE A.Y. 2009-10 IS U PHELD AS EVEN IN THIS YEAR NO EVIDENCE COULD EVER BE PRODUCED TO SUBSTANT IATE THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE APPELLANT'S BUSINESS. THEREFORE THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS REGARD ARE DECIDED AGAINST THE APPELLANT. 4. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL: 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS. 25 05 885. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION WAS INCUR RED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. GROUND NOS. 1 & 4 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE. I.T.A. NO. 1667/HYD/2012 M/S. SUN INFRAA :- 5 -: 5. IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE FI LED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF COPY OF IT RETURNS OF SMT. B. BHAGYALAXMI ALONG WITH COMPUTATION OF INCOMES AND BALANCE SHEET AN D LEDGER ACCOUNT COPY OF ASSESSEE AND CONTRA ACCOUNT IN THE BOO KS OF SMT. B. BHAGYALAXMI. ASSESSEE ALSO PRAYED FOR ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH ARE AS UNDER: ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT NOTICING THAT TH E FACTS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ARE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND IN MECHANICALLY APPLYIN G THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. LEARNED A.O HAS ERRED IN PRESUMING THAT THERE WA S MORE THAN ONE AGENT (PARA 8. 15TH LINE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER) W HEREAS THERE IS ONLY ONE AGENT SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI IN RESPECT OF WHO COMMISSION PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE. 3. LEARNED A.O HAS ALSO ERRED IN STATING THAT THE L IST OF CUSTOMERS WAS NOT PRODUCED IGNORING THAT SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI S TATED IN HER STATEMENT 'LIST ENCLOSED' IN ANSWER TO Q.5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS 4. ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A) & A.O HAVE RESULTED IN DOUBLE ASSESSMENT OF THE INCOME RETURNED BY SMT. BHAGYALAK SHMI. INCOME RETURNED WAS RS.11 56 470/- AND TAX PAID THEREON BY WAY OF TDS WAS RS. 2 83 917/-. DISALLOWANCE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN RESTRICTED TO RS.13 49 415/- (RS. 25 05 885/- - RS. 11 56 470/-) . 6. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS IN THIS YEAR ARE DIFFERENT FROM EARLIER YEAR IN THE SENSE THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE C OMMISSION PAYMENT AND SO RELYING ON THE OTHER YEARS ORDER IS N OT CORRECT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT REFERRING TO THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURI NG THE PROCEEDINGS THE SAID BHAGYALAXMI HAS CONFIRMED THE A MOUNT AND HAS INTRODUCED THE MIDDLE-MEN. THEREFORE PAYMENT OF C OMMISSION IS A BUSINESS NECESSITY. I.T.A. NO. 1667/HYD/2012 M/S. SUN INFRAA :- 6 -: 7. LD. DR HOWEVER REITERATED THE ORDERS OF AO AND C IT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT ON SIMILAR FACTS IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE THE ITAT HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE IN EARLIER YEAR THERE FORE FACTS BEING SAME THERE IS NO NECESSITY FOR DIFFERING FROM THE EARLIER YEARS ORDER. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE FACTS ON RECORD. EVEN THOUGH ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AD DITIONAL GROUNDS IN THIS YEAR THERE IS ONLY ONE COMMISSION PA YMENT AS AGAINST MANY IN EARLIER YEAR THE COMMON FACTOR IS THA T SMT. B. BHAGYALAXMI WAS PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2 30 73 945/- IN AY. 2008-09 AND AN AMOUNT OF RS. 25 05 859/- IN THIS YEAR . ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF RETURN OF INCOME F ILED BY SMT. B. BHAGYALAXMI ARE SIMILAR TO THE EVIDENCE FURNISHED IN THE EARLIER YEAR ALSO AND THERE BEING NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS EXCE PT THE AMOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID DURING THE YEAR WE HAVE NO OPTION THAN TO FOLLOW THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION GIVEN IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN EARLIER YEAR. THE ITAT HAVI NG CONSIDERED THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS AND ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY TH E DEPARTMENT HAVE HELD IN AY 2008-09 AS UNDER: 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT IF THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF ANY EXPENDITURE THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE AS SESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THERE IS NO WRITTE N AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE RECIPIENTS OF THE 5 CO MMISSION AGENTS. EVEN IF THERE IS NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT THE ASSESSEE COULD CLAIM DEDUCTION FOR THE EXPENSES PROVIDED IF IT IS ESTABLISHED WITH DOCUMENTARY AND COGENT EVIDENCE THAT SUCH EXPENDITU RE WAS INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS. NOW IN T HE ASSESSEE'S CASE THERE IS EVEN AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE REGARDING RENDER OF ANY SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROCURE BUSINESS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EVEN PRODUCE ANY CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN T HE PARTIES I.T.A. NO. 1667/HYD/2012 M/S. SUN INFRAA :- 7 -: WHICH COULD HAVE SERVED AS A CONTEMPORANEOUS CIRCUM STANTIAL EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO CORRELATE THE COMMISSION PAYMENTS WITH REFERENCE TO THE SALE. THOUGH THE AS SESSEE MADE A CLAIM THAT THE COMMISSION AGENTS COLLECTIVELY INTRO DUCED THE PARTIES THERE IS NO CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE COMMISSION A GENTS. AS SEEN FROM PARAS 6.2 AND 6.3 OF THE CIT(A)'S ORDER THE S TATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE CONTRADICTORY IN NATURE. THE P ARTIES HEREIN HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE ABOUT THE NAMES OF PERS ONS WHO WERE RECOMMENDED BY THEM. 7. BEING SO IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT THE PARTIES WHOM THE ASSESSEE MADE ANY SALES WERE THROUGH THESE PARTIES TO WHOM THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID. AS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE IMPUGN ED RECIPIENTS OF THE PAYMENTS RENDERED ANY SERVICE FOR WHICH COMMISS ION HAS BEEN PAID WHEN THEY DID NOT EVEN KNOW THEM. THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO P ROVE THAT THE COMMISSION WAS PAID WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON VARIOU S JUDGEMENTS WHICH CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE'S CASE AS T HESE JUDGEMENTS ARE ON THEIR OWN FACTS. THE QUESTION WHETHER THE A SSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED WHOLL Y AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS IS ESSENTIA LLY A QUESTION OF FACT TO BE DECIDED ON MERIT OF EACH CASE. 8. FROM THE STATEMENTS OF THE SO CALLED COMMISSION AGENTS FURTHER INFERENCES CAN BE DRAWN THAT NONE OF THE CO MMISSION AGENTS IS ABLE TO PROVIDE DEFINITIVE LIST OF CUSTOMERS QU ANTITY OF SALES EFFECTED AND WORKING OF COMMISSION. IN FACT M/S. R K MARKETING SERVICES CLAIMS THAT IT DID NOT KNOW ANY CUSTOMERS (LEAVE ALONE INTRODUCING THEM). IT STATES THAT IT WAS ONLY ENSUR ING QUALITY OF ORE LOADED INTO TRUCKS. THE AGENTS RECEIVED COMMISSION ONLY FROM THREE PARTIES NAMELY M/S. SUN LNFRAA. M/S. SUN MINERALS AND M/S. K V MINERALS AND NO ONE ELSE DESPITE THE FACT THAT BELL ARY IS A BIG CENTRE FOR IRON ORE TRADING. THESE AGENTS DID NOT PROVIDE SIMILAR SERVICES TO ANY OTHER PARTIES DESPITE BOASTING THEIR EXPERTISE IN IRON ORE TRADING. ALL THE AGENTS APPEAR TO BE DISPARATE AND THE ASSES SEE CLAIM THAT ALL ITS CUSTOMERS WERE INTRODUCED BY ALL THESE AGEN TS DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A RELIABLE STATEMENT. THE MOST GLARIN G INCONSISTENCY APPEARS IN THE STATEMENT OF SMT. B. BAGYA LAKSHMI WHO STATES THAT SHE INTRODUCED EVEN M/S. K V MINERALS. 9. THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE COMMISSION AGENTS AND THERE WAS NO DOCUMENT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT COULD BE SAID THAT THE COMMISSION WAS DUE AND PAYABLE. AS IT HAS BEEN ALREADY POINTED OUT EVEN THE AGREEM ENTS DO NOT BIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM ENQUIRING INTO DEDUCTIBI LITY OF I.T.A. NO. 1667/HYD/2012 M/S. SUN INFRAA :- 8 -: COMMISSION. IN THIS CASE THERE ARE NO AGREEMENTS AN D ALSO THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY CORRESPONDENCE OR ANY PERSON AL MEETINGS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE COMMISSION AGENTS TO S UGGEST THAT THERE WAS ANY RELATIONSHIP ON THE BASIS OF WHICH TH E COMMISSION AGENTS PROCURED CUSTOMERS FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR WHIC H THEY WERE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE COMMISSION. THE UNDERSTANDING B ETWEEN THE PARTIES WAS AN ORAL UNDERSTANDING AND IT WAS DOUBTF UL THAT SUCH AN ORAL UNDERSTANDING COULD HAVE BEEN ARRIVED AT WITHO UT ANY LONGSTANDING RELATIONSHIP HAVING BEEN ESTABLISHED B ETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE COMMISSION AGENTS INVOLVING SUCH H UGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. FURTHER THE ASSESS EE IS UNABLE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF CUSTOMERS INTRODUCED BY EACH AGENT AND ALSO THE EXACT WORKING OF COMMISSION PAYMENT MADE TO EAC H OF THE AGENTS. MERE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AFTER DEDUCTION OF TDS DOES NOT ABSOLVE THE ASSESSE E FROM DISCHARGING ITS BURDEN WITH REGARD TO PROVING BUSIN ESS PURPOSE OF THE PAYMENTS. 8.1. NOTHING WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO COUNTER THE FINDI NGS OF AUTHORITIES AND ALSO THE FINDINGS OF THE ITAT IN EARL IER YEAR. EVEN THOUGH LD. COUNSEL TRIED TO MAKE OUT A CASE THAT FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE DIFFERENT WE DO NOT FIND ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE S ENSE THE SAME STATEMENT THE SAME AGREEMENT AND THE SAME SORT OF DETAILS ARE BEING FURNISHED IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM WHICH WAS ALR EADY ANALYSED AND REJECTED BY THE ITAT IN EARLIER YEAR. T HE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS IN TUNE WITH THE FINDINGS IN EARLIER YEAR. SINCE THERE BEING NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE AFFIRM THE ORD ER OF CIT(A) AND REJECT THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH SEPTEMBER 2016 SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER HYDERABAD DATED 28 TH SEPTEMBER 2016 TNMM I.T.A. NO. 1667/HYD/2012 M/S. SUN INFRAA :- 9 -: COPY TO : 1. SUN INFRAA HYDERABAD. C/O. P.R. DATLA & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS 6-3-788/A/9 FIRST FLOOR DU RGA NAGAR AMEERPET HYDERABAD. 2. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-6 HYDERABAD. 3. CIT (APPEALS)-IV HYDERABAD. 4. THE CIT-III HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.