ACIT, New Delhi V. Sh. Rajesh Kumar Pasricha, New Delhi

ITA 2745/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6962 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 23-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUDHIR JAIN
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 37(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESI DENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEM BER ITA NO. 2745/DEL/2012 AY: 20 08-09 ACIT, VS RAJESH KUMAR PASRICHA, CIRCLE-23(1), FLAT NO. 102, A-13, C.R. BUILDING, KAILASH COLONY, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (PAN: AAHPP3063B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ATIQ AHMAD, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUDHIR JAIN, CA ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE DEPAR TMENT AGAINST ORDER DATED 29.2.2012 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A)-XXIII, NEW DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A N INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF EXPORT OF ENGINEERING GO ODS TO USA AND GULF COUNTRIES UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S VORT EX SYSTEMS. THE ONLY DISPUTE IS WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,04,08,243/- PAID TO MRS. RAKHI A RORA . 3. THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED COMMISSION EXPENSES OF RS. 1,04,08,243/- IN AY 2008-09, WHICH WAS PAID TO MRS. RAKHI ARORA I.T.A. NO. 2745/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 2 UNDER AN AGREEMENT APPOINTING MRS. RAKHI ARORA AS A GENT FOR CANVASSING AND PROMOTING ORDERS FOR SALES OF CASTIN GS AND MACHINE PARTS IN USA AND FOR REALIZATION OF SALE PROCEEDS. 4. THE AO MADE DISALLOWANCE BY MAKING REFERENCE TO SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE IN AY 2006-07. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO IN PARAGRAPH 8 ARE EXTRACTED HERE UNDER: 8. THE FACTS OF THE CURRENT YEAR CASE IS NO WAY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF A.Y. 2006-07 EXCEPT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AVAILABLE A COPY OF AGREEMENT BUT HE HAS COMPLETELY FAILED TO PROVE AS TO WHAT WAS TH E ACTUAL EFFORT MADE BY MRS. RAKHI ARORA IN AFFECTING THE SALE. A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE RECIPIENT SO THAT THE SAME CAN BE EXAMINED. HOWEVER, THOSE WERE NOT AVAILED OFF FO R THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN FACT A SHAM TRANSACTION AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ALLOWANCE U/S. 37(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961. ACCORDINGLY, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,04,08,243/- IS BEING DISALLOWED U/S. 37(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND SHALL BE ADDED IN THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 5. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION PAID TO MRS. RAKHI ARORA FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 CAME UP BEFORE F BENCH OF ITAT, DELHI AND THE MAT TER WAS RESTORED TO ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 25.10.2011 IN I.T.A. NO. 252/DEL/2010 WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVAT IONS:- IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED THE COPY OF AGREEMENT AND THE DETAILS OF THE PAYMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER . THE DETAILS OF COMMISSION PAID AND PAYABLE WAS ALSO FURNISHED. THE DETAILS OF SALES MADE BY THE ASSESS EE TO I.T.A. NO. 2745/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 3 OVERSEAS CUSTOMERS WERE ALSO AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBSEQUENTLY PRODUCED A CONFIRMATION L ETTER FROM M/S WAUKESHA IRON FOUNDARY INC. BEFORE THE LEA RNED CIT (A), WHICH WAS ADMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION AT TH E APPELLATE STAGE. THE DETAILS OF INVOICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S WAUKESHA IRON FOUNDARY INC. AND DE TAILS OF PAYMENT RECEIVED FROM M/S WAUKESHA IRON FOUNDARY INC. ARE PART OF THE ASSESSEES RECORD AND THE RELE VANT ENTRY IN RESPECT THEREOF HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW COLLECTED THE VARIOUS E-MAIL COMMUNICATION MADE BETWEEN THE PARTIES FROM TIME TO TIME AND FILED BEFORE US FOR CONSIDERATION TO FURTHER PR OVE THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. SINCE THESE E-MAIL COMMUNICATIONS GO TO THE ROOT OF THE ISSUE REGARDING ACTIVITIES OR SERVI CES RENDERED BY MRS. RAKHI ARORA, WE ARE INCLINED TO AD MIT THESE EVIDENCES FOR CONSIDERATION SO THAT THE ISSUE WHETHER MRS. RAKHI ARORA HAD ACTUALLY RENDERED ANY SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE, CAN BE DECIDED IN ITS RIGHT AND CORRECT PERSPECTIVE. HOWEVER, THE VERACITY AND GENUINENESS OF THESE E-MAIL COMMUNICATIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS, NO W FILED BEFORE US, HAVE NEVER BEEN EXAMINED AND VERIF IED BY THE AO AS THE AO HAD NO OCCASION TO EXAMINE AND VER IFY THE SAME. WE, THEREFORE, RESTORE THE ISSUE REGARDIN G FACTORS OF SERVICES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN RENDERED BY MRS. R AKHI ARORA BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR HIS FRESH ADJU DICATION, AFTER EXAMINING ALL THE EVIDENCES, DOCUMENTS AND PA PERS, THAT HAVE NOW BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, IN COURSE OF WHICH HE SHALL PROVIDE REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SHALL PRO DUCE ALL THESE DETAILS AND EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO FOR H IS EXAMINED AND VERIFICATION. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY, TH US GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS RESTORED BAC K TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR HIS FRESH ADJUDICATION. 6. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN PURSUANCE OF DIRECTIONS OF TR IBUNAL, AO ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF COMMISSION VIDE ORDER U/S 254 /143(3) DATED 19.11.2012 FOR AY 2006-07. I.T.A. NO. 2745/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 4 7. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE LD. CIT ( A) AFTER DETAILED CONSIDERATION OF FACTS AND ORDER OF ITAT (FOR AY 20 06-07) ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF COMMISSION VIDE PARAGRAPH 5.2 OF THE APPEL LATE ORDER DATED 29.02.2012. FINDINGS OF LD. CIT (A) ARE EXTRACTED A S BELOW: 5.2 IT MAY BE SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF COMMISSION HAS BEEN MADE PRINCIPALLY ON THE GROUNDS THAT EVIDENCE OF SERVICE S RENDERED WAS NOT PROVIDED, AND THAT SMT. ARORA WAS NOT PRODUCED FOR EXAMINATION. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLA CED ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07, AND T HE CIT (A)S ORDER OF THAT YEAR. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSME NT FOR THAT YEAR HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE HONBLE ITA T, WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS FOR VERIFICATION OF SUCH EVIDENCES AS AFFIDAVIT AND COPY OF PASSPORT OF SMT. RAKHI ARORA, COPIES OF PURCHASE ORDERS, DEBIT NOTES , PAYMENTS OF COMMISSION, PAYMENTS RECEIVED FROM M/S WFI, EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES, AND COPIES OF INVOICES. ALL THESE RELEVANT EVIDENCES HA VE BEEN PRODUCED AND VERIFIED FOR THE YEAR PRESENTLY U NDER APPEAL. THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE DOCUMENTS HA VE DIRECT BEARING TO THE ISSUE UNDER ADJUDICATION. A PLETHORA OF EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN PRODUCED TO PROVE T HE IDENTITY OF THE UAE BASED AGENT, AND THE GENUINENES S OF THE SERVICES RENDERED AND PAYMENTS MADE. AFTER CAREFULLY EXAMINING THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE APPE LLANT IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF COMMISSION, IT IS HELD T HAT THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID IN LIEU OF ACTUAL SERVICES RENDERED, AND CONSTITUTES AN EXPENDITURE DEDUCTIBLE FROM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPELLANT SUCCEEDS AT GROUND NO. 1. THE REMAINING GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS GENERAL/CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATUR E AND REQUIRE NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. 8. AGGRIEVED AND NOW IN THE APPEAL BEFORE US, THE D EPARTMENT HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- (I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF I.T.A. NO. 2745/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 5 COMMISSION U/S 37(1) OF RS. 1,04,08,243/- CLAIMED A S DEDUCTION BY ASSESSEE. (II) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CES UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULE 1962 WITHOUT PROVID ING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS REQUIRED UN DER SUB RULE 3 OF RULE 46A. (III) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 9. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED D EDUCTION OF RS.1,04,08,243/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE AVAILABLE A COPY OF AGREEMENT ENTERED BY H IM WITH MRS. RAKHI ARORA AND ALSO A COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT I DENTIFYING THE PAYMENT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE NEXUS OF PAYMENT MADE BY HIM VIS--VIS SALES MADE. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE MERE EXISTENCE OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ITS SELLING AGENT OR PAYMENT OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS AS COMM ISSION, DOES NOT BIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HOLD THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE EXCLUSIVELY AND WHOLLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSEE S BUSINESS. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAD ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. HE ALSO REITERATED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAD ERRED IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A OF TH E INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 WITHOUT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE AS SESSING OFFICER. I.T.A. NO. 2745/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 6 10. THE LD. AR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND ALSO FILED A SYNOPSIS. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFUL LY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT T HE ISSUES DISPUTED BY THE DEPARTMENT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE LD. CI T(A) IN PARA NOS. 4 TO 5.2 OF HIS ORDER WHICH ARE BEING REPRODUC ED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE:- 4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMIS SIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT AND PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. I HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUG H THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND OF THE ITAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE CIT(A)XXIII, VIDE ORDE R DATED 16.11.2009, HAD CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF COMMISSI ON PAYMENT OF RS. 26,42,636/- MADE TO SMT. RAKHI ARORA. THE CIT (A)'S FINDING IS BASED ON THE FACTS THAT TH E APPELLANT DID NOT PRODUCE EVIDENCE OF SERVICES REND ERED IN THE FORM OF CORRESPONDENCE, AND EVEN THE EXISTEN CE AND IDENTITY OF THE AGENT WAS NOT PROVED. THE HON'B LE ITAT, DELHI, VIDE ORDER DATED 25.10.2011, HAS SET A SIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) RESTORING THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THE E XTRACT OF THE ITAT'S ORDER IS REPRODUCED IN THE APPELLANT' S SUBMISSIONS ABOVE. THE ITAT HAS DIRECTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD VERIFY THE INVOICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S WAUKESHA FOUNDRY INC., USA (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS WFI), DETAILS OF PAYMENT RECEIVED BY WFI, COPIES OF PURCHASE ORDERS FROM WFI , E- MAIL COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SMT. RAKHI ARORA, AND THE RELEVANT ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE LEARNED BENCH HAS DIRECTED THAT 'THE ISSUE WHETHER SMT. RAKHI ARORA HAS ACTUALLY RENDERE D ANY SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE (IS TO) BE DECIDED IN ITS RIGHT AND CORRECT PERSPECTIVE'. THESE OBSERVATIONS HAVE I.T.A. NO. 2745/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 7 BEEN KEPT IN MIND IN DECIDING THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABI LITY OF COMMISSION PAID TO SMT. RAKHI ARORA IN THE CURRE NT YEAR. {5} THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED COPY OF THE COMPLE TE PASSPORT OF SMT. RAKHI ARORA, EVIDENCING HER RESIDENCE IN THE UAE FROM 1998 ONWARDS. THE APPELLANT HAS ALS O FURNISHED THE CONFIRMATION OF SMT. RAKHI ARORA AFFIRMING THE RECEIPT OF COMMISSION OF US$ 249,065 FROM M/S VORTEX SYSTEMS FOR MOBILIZING ORDERS AND SUPPLI ES TO M/S WFI IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08. THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER PRODUCED THE COPIES OF BILLS ISSUED TO M/S WFI BY THE APPELLANT, ALONG WITH DEBI T NOTES OF COMMISSION OF 12.5% OF THE SAME INVOICE VA LUE ISSUED BY SMT. ARORA. COPIES OF REGULAR AND FREQUEN T E- MAIL CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND SMT. ARORA HAVE BEEN FILED. THE E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE SHOWS THAT SMT. ARORA HAS PLACED THE ORDERS, MONITORED SHORT SUPPLIES AND DELAYED SHIPMENTS, AND HAS EVIDENTLY BEEN INVOLVED IN ENSURING DESPATCHES AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL. AN EXAMPLE OF CORRESPONDENCE DATED 5.10.2007 IS AS UNDER: ' FROM: RAKHI ARORA (MAILTO:AARORA&EMIRATES.NET.AE) SENT: FRIDAY, OCTOBER 05, 2007 1:29 AM TO:'VORTEX @ AIRTELBROADBAND.IN' ATTACH: VORTEX SCHEDULE WF REV34_100407.XIS SUBJECT: FW: VORTEXSCHEDULE WFREV34_ 100407 RAJESH, PLEASE MARK YOUR SHIPMENTS IN 'BLUE' ON A WEEKLY BA SIS AND RETURN BACK BY WEDNESDAY EVERY WEEK >RETURN BY WED. 10/10 I.T.A. NO. 2745/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 8 THE PARTS HIGHLIGHTED IN 'RED' ARE THE CRITICAL PAR TS, PLEASE ADVISE STATUS ON EACH. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO CATCH UP ON THE NEGATIV E QUANTITIES? WE WILL WAIT FOR YOUR REPLY. PLEASE ADVISE STATUS ON THE FOLLOWING PARTS: 40676- WHEN SHIPPING BY AIR? WHAT IS YOUR PLAN TO C ATCH UP ON THE NEGATIVE QUANTITIES? 101860- YOU HAVE 30 PCS SCHEDULED FOR OCT 20- DO NO T SHIP- WE WILL NOT TAKE- (NO REQUIREMENTS) 130001000C- YOU HAVE AN EXTRA 40 PCS SCHEDULED IN R ED FOR OCTOBER- DO NOT SHIP! PUSH OUT TO NOVEMBER. 101861- YOU ARE SHORT 16 PCS IN SEPT. WHEN WILL TH EY SHIP? WILL WE GET IN OCT? 034001110S- YOU ARE SHORT 15 PCS IN SEPT. WHEN WILL THEY SHIP? WILL WE GET IN OCT?. 122054- NONE SCHEDULED FOR OCT. WHEN WILL THEY SHIP ? WILL WE GET IN OCT? 122056- YOU ARE SHORT 30 PCS IN OCT. WHEN WILL THEY SHIP? WILL WE GET IN OCT? HOW WILL YOU CATCH UP ON THE NE GATIVE QTY? 122058- YOU ARE SHORT 40 PCS IN SEPT. WHEN WILL THE Y SHIP? WILL WE GET IN OCT? THANKS RAKHI ARORA. (5.1) THE AGREEMENT SIGNED BY THE APPELLANT WITH S MT ARORA, BEING 'APPOINTMENT OF CANVASSER FOR PROMOTIN G SALES OF CASTINGS AND MACHINE PARTS TO WFI, USA' DATED 12 .3.2007 FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.2007 TO 31.3.2008 IS ON RECORD. THE MAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR PAYMENT OF COMMISSION @ 12 .5% ARE STATED IN DETAIL IN THE AGREEMENT. THE APPELLAN T HAS ALSO I.T.A. NO. 2745/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 9 FURNISHED THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION IN THE BOOKS SHOWING THE AMOUNT PAYABLE, AND THE COPY OF THE BAN K ACCOUNT SHOWING THE PAYMENTS MADE BETWEEN 16.4.2008 AND 3.12.2008. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FURNISHED THE CONFIRMATION OF M/S WFI, USA AFFIRMING THAT THE ORD ERS WERE PLACED ON M/S VORTEX SYSTEMS THROUGH SMT. RAKHI ARO RA. THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED COPIES OF THE INSTRUCTI ONS TO THE BANK FOR REMITTANCE AGAINST COMMISSION TO THE OVERS EAS AGENT THROUGH ITS EEFC ACCOUNT, ALONG WITH THE FORM A-2 AS PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA A ND THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT ACT. THE APPELLANT HAS CERTIFIED THAT ALL THE EVIDENCES RELIED UPON WERE P ROVIDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . {5.2} IT MAY BE SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THA T THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF COMMISSION HAS BEEN MADE PRINCIPALLY ON THE GROUNDS THAT EVIDENCE OF THE SER VICES RENDERED WAS NOT PROVIDED, AND THAT SMT. ARORA WAS NOT PRODUCED FOR EXAMINATION. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, A ND THE CIT (A)'S ORDER FOR THAT YEAR. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSM ENT FOR THAT YEAR HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE HONBLE ITAT, W ITH SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS FOR VERIFICATION OF SUCH EVIDEN CES AS AFFIDAVIT AND COPY OF PASSPORT OF SMT. ARORA, COPIE S OF PURCHASE ORDERS, DEBIT NOTES, PAYMENTS OF COMMISSIO N, PAYMENTS RECEIVED FROM M/S WFI, E-MAIL COMMUNICATIO NS BETWEEN THE PARTIES, AND COPIES OF INVOICES. ALL TH ESE RELEVANT EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN PRODUCED AND VERIFIED FOR THE YEAR PRESENTLY UNDER APPEAL. THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE DOCUMENTS HAVE DIRECT BEARING TO THE ISSUE UNDER ADJUDICATION. A PLETHORA OF EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN PRO DUCED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE UAE BASED AGENT, AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE SERVICES RENDERED AND PAYMENTS M ADE. AFTER CAREFULLY EXAMINING THE EVIDENCES FILED BY TH E APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF COMMISSION, IT IS HELD THAT THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID IN LIEU OF ACTUAL SERVICES RENDERED, AND CONSTITUTES AN EXPENDITURE DEDUCTIBLE FROM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEL LANT SUCCEEDS AT GROUND OF APPEAL NO 1. THE REMAINING GR OUNDS OF APPEAL ARE GENERAL/CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE AND R EQUIRE NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. I.T.A. NO. 2745/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 10 12. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FINDINGS BY THE LD. CIT (A) AS ABOVE MENTIONED, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS ONUS REGARDING THE COMMISSION ON BOTH THE COUNTS VIZ. (I) THAT THE PAYMENT WAS ACTUALLY MADE; AND (II) THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. AS F AR AS THE ISSUE OF ALLOWING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO BE SUBMITTED BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(A) IS CONCERNED, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A SPECIFIC F INDING IN PARA 5.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT, THE APPELLANT HAS CERTIFIED THAT ALL THE EVIDENCES RELIED UPON WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . THEREFORE, ON AN OVERALL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTER FERE WITH THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT (A). HENCE WE DIS MISS GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 OF THE DEPARTMENT. GROUND NO. 3 BEING GENERA L IN NATURE IS NOT BEING ADJUDICATED UPON. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTME NT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19TH OF FEB RUARY, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( G.D. AGRAWAL) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 19TH FEBRUARY, 2016 GS I.T.A. NO. 2745/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 11 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR