ACIT 21(1), MUMBAI V. HARRISON GARMENT DIVISION, MUMBAI

ITA 5459/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0311 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V VIDYADHAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMEER G DALAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'G' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5459/MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) A C I T - 21(1) ROOM NO. 116, 1ST FLOOR PIRAMAL CHAMBERS PAREL, MUMBAI 400012 VS. M/S. HARRISON GARMENTS DIVISION 337, ASHISH INDL. ESTATE GOKHALE ROAD, DADAR (W) MUMBAI 400028 PAN AAAFA1725C APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI V. VIDYADHAR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SAMEER G. DALAL DATE OF HEARING: 22.02.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22.02.2018 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-33, MUMBAI DATED 21.06.2016 FOR A.Y. 2012-13 ARISING OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF INC OME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT). 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS IN RESPECT OF DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF ` 36,03,599/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION EXPENSES. 3. AT THE OUTSET THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESS EES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10 IN ITA NOS. 30 22 & ITA NO. 5459/MUM/2016 M/S. HARRISON GARMENTS DIVISION 2 6480/MUM/2012 DATED 30.04.2014 WHEREIN THE AO DISAL LOWED THE COMMISSION PAYABLE TO NON-RESIDENT AGENT, MR. LENNY KING FOR PROCUREMENT OF SALES OUTSIDE INDIA. REFERRING TO TH E SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE TRI BUNAL DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. THEREFORE THE SAME MAY BE FOLLOWED FOR THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO AS THERE IS NO CHANGE IN FACTS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT IN FACT THE CIT(A) FOLLOWED TH E ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10. 4. THE LEARNED D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY SUP PORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE AO DISALLOWED AGENCY COMMISS ION PAYABLE TO MR. LENNY KING BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT SERVICES WERE RENDERED BY THE FOREIGN AGENT. SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2 008-09 AND 2009-10 AND THE COORDINATE BENCH DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE V IDE ORDER DATED 30.04.2014 IN ITA NOS. 3022 & 6480/MUM/2012. DURING CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE AO. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09, 2009-10 AND THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING HE SAID DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF AGENCY COMMISSION BY FO LLOWING THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH. GROUNDS RAISED BY REVENUE ARE REJECTED. ITA NO. 5459/MUM/2016 M/S. HARRISON GARMENTS DIVISION 3 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2018. SD/ - SD/ - (A.L. SAINI) (C.N. PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2018 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) -33, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT - 21, MUMBAI 5. THE DR, G BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.