- (1.) THESE three appeals filed by assessee against the three separate orders of ld. CIT(A) -41, Mumbai for assessment years 2006 -07, 2007 -08 and 2008 -09 have been heard together and are being disposed off by a single consolidated order, for the sake of convenience.
(2.) OUT of these three appeals, two appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 -07 and 2007 - 08 being I.T.A.No.7019,7020 and 7054/Mum/2010, which are directed against the orders of ld. CIT(A) -41, Mumbai both dated 30.8.2010, involve a solitary issue relating to the disallowance made by AO and confirmed by ld. CIT(A) on account of brokerage claimed to be paid by the assessee to Shri Ishwarchand Goel .
(3.) THE assessee in the present case is a company which is engaged in the business of processing and sale of fabrics. It belongs to JIMTEX GROUP. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was conducted in the premises belonging to JIMTEX Group including the case of the assessee. Pursuant to the search, notice under section 153A of the Act was issued by the AO, in response to which the assessee filed its return of income for both years under consideration i.e. AYs 2006 -07 and 2007 -08 on 12.01.2009 declaring total income of Rs.6,28,580/ - and Rs.1,04,59,364/ - respectively. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the AO that the assessee has claimed to have paid brokerage charges of Rs.1,30,625/ - and Rs. 57,757/ - to one Shri Ishwarchand Goel in the previous year relevant to assessment year 2006 -07 and 2007 -08 respectively. Since the similar claim made by assessee on account of brokerage charges paid to Shri Ishwarchand Goel was disallowed in AY -2005 -06 in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and the said disallowance was accepted by the assessee, the AO disallowed the brokerage claim to be paid by the assessee to Shri Ishwarchand Goel in both the years under consideration. The disallowance made by AO on account of brokerage charges paid to Shri Ishwarchand Goel was disputed by assessee in the appeals filed before the ld.CIT(A) and after considering the submissions made by the assessee as well as material available on record, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made byAO on account of brokerage charges paid to Shri Ishwarchand Goel for both the years under consideration i.e. assessment years 2006 -07 and 2007 -08 for the following identical reasons given in para 1.3 of his impugned orders: "1.3 I have considered the submissions of the appellant, order of the AO and facts of the case that the appellant has made payment brokerage to Shri Ishwarchand Goel for the AY 2006 -07 and 2007 -08. It is pertinent to note that in the AY 2005 -06 the appellant has shown the brokerage payment to Shri Ishwarchand Goel the same person which was disallowed because he has failed to prove the genuineness of this expenditure that it was incurred for the purposes. During the year under consideration the appellant has failed to furnish any evidence before the AO to prove that this expenditure was wholly and exclusively incurred for the business purpose and any services rendered by Shri Ishwarchand Goel. Therefore, the AO has made disallowance in these years also Before me the appellant has submitted that the payment was made by cheque and TDS was deducted was deducted but no evidence was submitted to prove any services rendered by the broker. Consequently the appellant has failed to submit any evidence to prove that this expenditure was wholly and exclusively incurred for the business purpose and what services rendered by Shri Ishwarchand Goel to whom the brokerage payment was made . The onus is always on the assessee to submit evidence before the AO before claiming any deduction as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s Calcutta Agencies 19 ITR 119. In the present case the appellant has failed to submit any documentary evidence to prove the services rendered by Shri Ishwarchand Goel to whom the brokerage payment was made and consequently to prove that this expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the business purpose of the appellant company'";