ITO WD 2, PALGHAR V. IRANI ABRESIVES, PALGHAR

ITA 4169/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0923 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N HEMALATHA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI , BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 4169/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014 - 15 ) ITO WARD - 2, PALGHAR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ITO, BIDCO ROAD, PALGHAR, TAL. & DIST. PALGHAR - 401 404 / VS. M/S. IRANI A B RESIVES AT & POST GHOLVAD, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, TAL. DAHANU, DIST. - PALGHAR ./ ./ PAN/ GIR NO. AABFI 4014 K ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MS. N. HEMALATHA / RESPONDENT BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 10.10.2017 / DATE OF PR ONOUNCEMENT : 05.01 .2018 / O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA , A. M.: THIS A PPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 3, THANE DATED 22.03.2015 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) - 3, THANE ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 31,29,495/ - ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS T HAT THE 2 ITA NO. 4169/MUM/2017 (A.Y.2014 - 15) ITO VS. M/S. IRANI A B RESIVES ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM OF SERVICES FROM M/S. UTKARSH ENTERPRISES FOR WHICH IT HAS PAID COMMISSION TO M/S. UTKARSH ENTERPRISES. _ .. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 3, THANE, SHOULD BE SET - ASIDE AND THAT OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE RESTORED. 3. THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING IN GRINDING WHEELS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT, THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS PAID COMMI SSION OF RS.31,29,495/ - TO M/S. U TKARSH ENTERPRISES. THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION ALONG WITH ITR - V BUT FAILED TO SUBMIT COPY OF BILLS/INVOICES RAISED BY M/S. UTKARSH ENTERPRISES. FURTHER, RESPONSE TO SUMMONS, THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S. UTKARSH ENTERPRISES DID NOT ATTEND; HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THROUGH POST COPY OF BANK STATEMENT, LEDGER ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE , COPY OF INVOICE, COPY OF ITR ALONG WITH COMPUTATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER ADDED BACK THE AMOUNT OF COMMISSION BY STATING THAT NO DETAILS SUCH AS WORKING OF COMMISSION, DETAILS OF SE RVICE PROVIDED AND PERCENTAGE OF COMMISSION ARE GIVEN AND FURTHER ASSESSEE FAILED TO RESPOND TO THE LETTER DATED 13,12.2016. 4. UPON THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER: (III) THE D ISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME IS DELETED ON THE FOLLOWING REASONS A ) THE APPELLANT HAS FILED ALL REQUISITE DETAILS AND IN RESPONSE TO SUMMON U/S.131, MR. LAUKLK KORGAONKAR, PROP OF M/S. UTKARSH ENTERPRISES HAS FILED ALL THE REQUI SITE DETAILS LIKE BANK STATEMENT SHOWING RECEIPTS OF COMMISSION AMOUNT, LEDGER ACCOUNT CONFIRMING ALL THE COMMISSION RECEIPTS TRANSACTIONS, COPY OF ITR FOR AY 2014 - 2015 ALONG WITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME, IN FACT, MR. LAUKIK KORGAONKAR, PROP. OF M/S U KARSH ' ENTERPRISES COULD NOT ATTEND PERSONALLY, DUE TO SAD DEMISE OF HIS MOTHER, THEREF O RE, SINCE THERE WAS NO PERSONAL ATTENDANCE IT CANNOT BE THE REASON FOR DISALLOWANCE, B) THE COMMISSION IS NOT ONLY PAID IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, BUT WAS PAID PRIOR TO THIS YE AR, I.E. IN A.Y.S 2013 - 14, 2012 - 13 & 2011 - 12 AND THE 3 ITA NO. 4169/MUM/2017 (A.Y.2014 - 15) ITO VS. M/S. IRANI A B RESIVES PAYMENTS OF COMMISSION WERE ACCEPTED BY THE THEN AO UNDER SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S,143(3) OF THE ACT. C) . THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO DEDUCTED T DS ON COMMISSION PAID AND M/S.UKARSH ENTERPRISES HAS ALSO PAID TH E TAX. THEREFORE, THE REASONS FOR DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION PAID ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE, HENCE, THE SAME IS DELETED AND THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT ON THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 6. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSELS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. I FIND THAT IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS OF THE COMMISSION PAYMENT TO THE CONCERNED PARTY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ADVERSE INFERENCE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I S PRIMARILY DUE TO THE NON ATTENDANCE TO THE RECIPIENTS OF COMMISSION. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS NOTED THAT THIS WAS PRIMARILY DUE TO THE SAD DEMISE OF MOTHER OF RECIPIENT . FURTHER, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS NO TED THAT THE SAID COMMISSION WAS PAID IN EARLIER YEARS ALSO AND THE PAYMENT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SCRUTINY U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO DEDUCTED TDS ON THE SAID PAYMENT AND PAID THE TAX. UNDER THESE CIRCUMST ANCES, IN MY CONSIDERED OP INION, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN T H E ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). I ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE SAME. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE R EVENUE S APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDE R PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05.01.2018 S D/ - (S HAMIM YAHYA ) / A CCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 05.01.2018 4 ITA NO. 4169/MUM/2017 (A.Y.2014 - 15) ITO VS. M/S. IRANI A B RESIVES . . ./ ROSHANI , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F ILE / B Y ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI