, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: CHENNAI , , BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA , ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER ./ I . T . A NO. 3270 /CHNY/201 9 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 201 1 - 20 1 2 M/S. JUMBO BAG LIMITED, NEW NO.4, OLD NO.47, 1 ST FLOOR, S.K. ENCLAVE, NOWROJI ROAD, CHETPET, CHENNAI 600 0 31 . [PAN: AA ACJ 1784D ] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE IV (2), CHENNAI 600 034. ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. T. BANUSEKAR , C.A. /RESPONDENT BY : M R . SURESH PERIASAMY, J CIT / DATE OF HE ARING : 0 7 .0 4 .2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23. 0 4 .2021 / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , (APPEALS) - 6 IN I.T.A. NO. 296 /CIT(A) - 6 /2014 - 15 DATED 19.09.2019 RELE VANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 1 - 201 2 . I . T . A NO . 3270 /CHNY/201 9 : - 2 - : 2. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID A COMMISSION OF RS.68,05,238/ - TO SHRI DEEPAK MENON AND ALSO AN AMOUNT OF R S.23,46,192/ - TO ALREEF INTERNATIONAL AND NO TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE [TDS] WAS DEDUCTED FOR THE COMMISSION PAYMENT . ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY SUCH CORRESPONDENCE S BETWEEN SHRI DEEPAK MENON AND THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY BASIS FOR THE COMMISSION PAYMENT. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5(2B) R.W.S.9(1)(I) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS .91,51,430/ - IS TAXABLE IN INDIA AND ACCORDINGLY HE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED REQUIS ITE DOCUMENT S AND EVIDENCES TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE COMMISSION PAYMENT AND THE DETAILS AS TO WHERE THE SERVICES WERE ACTUALLY RENDERED. I . T . A NO . 3270 /CHNY/201 9 : - 3 - : 4. ON APPEAL BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT ALL THE DETAILS WERE FILE D BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT COULD BE SEEN IN PAGES 9, 10, 11 & 12. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY CORRESPONDENCE WITH S HRI DEEPAK MENON NOR ALSO SUBMITTED THE BASIS FOR THE COMMISSION PAYMENT. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS IN RESPECT TO THE SERVICES RENDERED AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE COMMISSIO N PAYMENT. 8. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ISSUE NEED S TO BE REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DETAILED ENQUIRY AND VERIFICATION . I . T . A NO . 3270 /CHNY/201 9 : - 4 - : ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER AND R EMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE DE NOVO IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A . NO. 3270 /CHNY/201 9 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 23 RD APR IL , 2021 IN CHENNAI. SD/ - ( ) ( G. MANJUNATHA) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - ( ) ( V. DURGA RAO ) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / CHENNAI, / DATED: 23 RD APRIL , 2021 IA , SR. PS / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / CIT(A) 4. / CIT 5. / DR 6. / GF