Sh. Vijay Bector, Sirhind V. ACIT, Mandi Gobindgarh

ITA 65/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9851 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Fair market value
• Section: 37(1); 37

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.65/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 SHRI. VIJAY BECTOR, VS. ASSISTANT CIT, PROPRIETOR. BECTOR CIRCLE MANDI AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION, GOBINDGARH GT ROAD, SIRHIND PAN NO. ABDPB3387M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. T.N. SINGLA RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 11/04/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/06/2016 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA A.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), PATIALA, DATED 19/01/2016. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS BAD AND AGAINST THE FACTS & LAW. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS WRONGLY UPHELD DISALLOWANCE OF PART OF THE COMMISSION PAID TO THE AGENTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,3 5,000/- 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, A LTER OR WITHDRAWN ANY GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE FINAL HEARING. 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS . 15,35,000/- 3. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE A SSESSEE IS A DEALER OF M/S ESCORTS LTD. AND TRADES IN FARMTRAC TRACTORS. DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD PAID TOTAL 2 COMMISSION OF RS. 32,43,000/- TO VARIOUS PERSONS FO R FACILITATING SALE OF TRACTORS OUT OF WHICH RS. 1,64,000/- WAS PAID TO 74 DIFFERENT PE RSONS AT THE RATE OF RS. 2000/- TO RS. 2500/- PER TRACTOR SALE EFFECTED AND THE BAL ANCE RS. 30,70,000/- WAS PAID TO FIVE PERSONS AS LUMPSUM COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: SR. NO. NAME OF THE PERSON AMOUNT (IN RS.) I. SH. AJAY BECTOR 9,90,000 II. SH. SUNIL BECTOR 9,80,000 III. SH. PRAVEEN KUMAR 6,00,000 IV. SH. RUCHI ARORA 1,90,000 V. SH. SANJEEV PANDHI 3,10,000 TOTAL 30,70,000 4. LD. AO HELD THAT THE PAYMENT MADE TO SH. AJAY BE CTOR OF RS. 9,90,000/- AND SH. SUNIL BECTOR OF RS. 9,80,000/- WAS COVERED UNDER THE AMBIT OF SECTION 40A(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, BEING SONS OF T HE ASSESSEE, AND WAS EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE. HE THEREFORE MADE AN AD DITION OF RS. 19,70,000/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT O F THE COMMISSION PAID TO THE AFORESAID TWO PERSONS. SIMILARLY THE LD. AO HEL D THAT THE COMMISSION PAID TO THE OTHER THREE PERSONS WHO WERE CLOSE ASSOCIATE OF THE ASSESSEE, AMOUNTING TO RS. 11,00,000/- WAS ALSO EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE AND FURTHER THAT IT WAS NOT SPENT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE AN ADDITION OF RS. 11,00,000/- WAS ALSO M ADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPE AL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HELD THAT THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE AFORESTATED F IVE PERSONS WAS HIT BY THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40A(2) OF THE ACT AND FURTHER THAT CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS BEFORE HIM, COMMISSION PAID TO THESE PERS ONS WAS JUSTIFIED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 5,000/- PER TRACTOR AS AGAINST RS. 10 ,000/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE ADMITTEDLY THE SALE OF TRACTORS EFFECTED THRO UGH THESE FIVE PERSONS WAS 3 307, DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 15,35,000(30 7 X 5,000) WAS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF CIT(A) AT PARA 4.3 AND 4.4 OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 4.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE L D. COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT AS ALSO THE REASONING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER GIVE N IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. TWO ISSUES ARISE OUT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION. FIRSTL Y, DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 19,80,000/- AS COMMISSION PAID TO SH. AJAY BECTOR AND SH. SUNIL BECTOR, SONS OF THE APPELLANT BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(2) AND SECON DLY, DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 11,00,000/- AS COMMISSION PAID TO OTHER THREE PERSO NS WHO WERE CLOSE ASSOCIATES OF THE APPELLANT BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(2) AND ALSO BY HOLDING THE SAME INADMISSIBLE U/S 37(1) BEING NOT EXCLUSIVELY A ND WHOLLY SPENT FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. 4.4 IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT APPELLANT HAD PAID ADDITIONAL COMMISSION RANGING FROM RS. 2,000/- TO RS. 5,000/- PER TRACTOR TO 74 D IFFERENT PERSONS FOR FACILITATING THE SALE, THEREOF, TOTAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,64,000/- AN D A.O. HAS NOT TAKEN ANY ADVERSE COGNIZANCE WITH REGARD THERETO. SINCE, THES E 74 PERSONS WERE TECHNICIANS (MISTRIES) WHO ACCOMPANIED THE BUYERS F OR HELPING THEM IN SELECTING THE MODEL OF THE TRACTOR AND ASSURED THEM OF THE TE CHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS. APPELLANT PAID THE COMMISSION TO THESE PERSONS, SO THAT THEY CONVINCE THE CUSTOMERS TO PURCHASE THE TRACTORS OF THE MAKE / BR AND SOLD BY THE APPELLANT. BESIDES THIS ADDITIONAL COMMISSION, THE APPELLANT P AID COMMISSION TO SH. AJAY BECTOR AND SH. SUNIL BECTOR, SONS OF THE APPELLANT. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMI SSION PAID WAS AS PER FAIR MARKET RATE. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAD NOT GIVEN A NY DOCUMENTARY OR OTHER POSITIVE EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THAT THE QUANTUM OF CO MMISSION PAID TO THE SPECIFIED FIVE PERSONS IS AS PER FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SER VICES RENDERED BY EACH OF THEM. ON THE OTHER HAND, HE HAS PAID COMMISSION TO MISTRI ES / TECHNICIANS FOR RENDERING SIMILAR SERVICES TO HIM IN THE SAME TIME PERIOD. RA THER, THESE PERSONS BEING TECHNICALLY QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED, HAVING BETTE R REACH AND BETTER COMMUNICATIONS AND HAD GREATER CREDIBILITY WITH AND INFLUENCE ON POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS, WHO ARE LARGELY AGRICULTURISTS. THEREFOR E, THE PAYMENTS MADE TO SUCH PERSONS PRESENT A READY AND ACCEPTABLE BENCH MARK I NDICATING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED FOR FACILITATING THE SALE OF TRACTORS. ON THE OTHER HAND, THESE FIVE PERSONS HAVE NO SPECIAL QUALIFICAT IONS TO ENTITLE THEM TO HIGHER PAYMENTS THAN THE TECHNICIANS. IN THE ABOVE VIEW OF THE MATTER, I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE AO THAT COMMISSION PAYMENT MADE TO THESE FIVE PERSONS ARE HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(2). HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND ON FAIR AND REASONABLE BASIS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT COMMISSION PAYMENTS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 5,000 PER TRACTOR FOR FACILITATING THE SALE THEREOF (I.E. THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT PAID TO TECHNICIAN S) CAN BE HELD JUSTIFIED AND HENCE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESSIVE COMMISS ION PAYMENT BEYOND RS. 5,000/- PER TRACTOR IS CONFIRMED. THEREFORE, THESE GROUNDS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PRE SENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. BEFORE US LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED TH AT AS FAR AS THE DISALLOWANCE OF SUM OF RS. 11,00,000/- WAS CONCERNE D, THE SAME HAVING BEEN MADE TO UNRELATED PERSONS, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40 A DID NOT APPLY AND THEREFORE NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE FOR THE REA SON THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED WERE EXCESSIVE. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE STATED THAT THE AO COULD NOT SIT IN THE ARMCHAIR OF THE ASSESSEE AND DETERMI NE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO BE CARRIED ON, AS H AS BEEN HELD BY THE COURTS IN 4 VARIOUS DECISIONS. AS FOR THE PAYMENTS MADE TO MR. AJAY BECTOR AND MR. SUNIL BECTOR, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME WAS PAID AS PER THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT T HE SERVICES RENDERED BY THESE TWO PERSONS WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE SERVICES RENDERE D BY THE TECHNICIANS. WHILE THE TECHNICIANS HAD BEEN PAID COMMISSION FOR HELPIN G THE BUYERS IN SELECTING THE MODE OF THE TRACTOR AND ALSO TO ASSURE THEM ABO UT THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS OF THE TRACTORS SOLD TO THEM, THE CO MMISSION PAID TO SH. AJAY BECTOR AND SH. SUNIL BECTOR WAS TO CONVINCE THE BUY ERS TO BUY THE TRACTORS. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A DEALER FO R DISTRICT FATEHGARH SAHIB, TEHSIL RAJPURA OF DISTT. PATIALA AND TEHSIL DERA BA SSI OF DISTT. MOHALI WHICH COVERS APPROXIMATELY 1200 VILLAGES. SOME VILLAGES WERE ABO UT 90 KM AWAY FROM THE CITY AND TO CONVINCE THE BUYERS SOMETIMES ONE VISIT WAS NOT ENOUGH AND MORE THAN ONE VISIT THE BUYERS HIMSELF. TO SELL THE TRACTORS IN THIS COMPETITIVE SCENARIO, THE HELP OF OTHER PERSONS, ON COMMISSION BASIS, WAS TAK EN TO ACHIEVE THE TARGETS. THE LD. AR STATED THAT THE SCOPE OF WORK OF SH. AJA Y BECTOR AND SH. SUNIL BECTOR WAS MUCH WIDER AND DIFFERENT FROM THE SCOPE OF WORK OF THE 74 TECHNICIANS AND ENTAILED GREATER RESPONSIBILITIES AND HARD WORK AND THEREFORE THE COMMISSION WAS PAID TO THEM AT THE RATE OF RS. 10,000/- WHICH WAS FAIR ENOUGH CONSIDERING THE MARKET VALUE OF COMMISSION PAID TO THE TECHNICI AN @ RS. 2000/- TO RS. 5,000/- PER TRACTOR SOLD. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE WORK OF THE TWO PERSONS COULD NOT BE COMPARED AT ALL WITH THAT OF THE TECHNICIANS AND TH EREFORE THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE COMMISSION PAID TO THE TE CHNICIANS WAS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING THE COMMISSION PAID TO SH. AJAY BECTOR AND SH. SUNIL BECTOR. 8. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A) AND STATED THAT THE AFORESTATED FIVE PERSONS WERE HIT BY THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2) OF THE ACT AND SINCE NO EVIDENCE HAD BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY THE QUANTUM OF COMMISSION PAID TO THEM THE CIT(A) HAD R IGHTLY DETERMINED THE FAIR 5 VALUE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED AT RS. 7,500/- PER T RACTOR SOLD CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THESE PERSONS WAS NAR ROWER IN SCOPE AS COMPARED TO THE TECHNICIANS AND THE PAYMENTS MADE T O THE TECHNICIAN COULD BE TREATED AS A BENCHMARK. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE US. 10. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS EMERGING IN THE PRESENT CA SE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID COMMISSION @ RS.2000-5000 PER TRACTOR SOLD , TO TECHNICIANS AND AT THE RATE OF RS. 10,000/- PER TRACTOR SOLD TO FIVE PERSO NS I.E; SHRI. AJAY BECTOR, SHRI. SUNIL BECTOR, SHRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR, SHRI. RUCHI ARORA AND SHRI. SANJEEV PANDHI. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SCOPE OF NATURE OF WORK OF THE TEC HNICIANS WAS DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE AFORESAID FIVE PERSONS. THAT SHRI AJAY BECTOR & SHRI. SUNIL BECTOR WERE SONS OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO AN UNDISPUTED FACT AND HENCE WERE PERSONS SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. THE MOOT QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE LD. CIT( A) HAD RIGHTLY DISALLOWED COMMISSION EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 15,35,000/ - BY RESTRICTING COMMISSION PAID TO THE AFORESAID FIVE PERSONS TO RS. 5000/- PE R TRACTOR SOLD AS AGAINST RS. 10,000/- PER TRACTOR SOLD, BY APPLYING THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 40A(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. WITH RESPECT TO THE COMMISSION PAID TO THE THREE PE RSONS I.E, SH. PRAVEEN KUMAR, SH. RUCHI ARORA AND SH. SANJEEV PANDHI WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO FINDING ABOUT THE NATURE OF RELATION OF THESE PERSONS WITH THE ASSESS EE EXCEPT STATING THEM TO BE CLOSE ASSOCIATES. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE HOLD, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(2) CAN BE MADE, SINCE FOR SECTION 40A(2) TO BE APPLICA BLE ONLY PAYMENTS MADE TO PERSONS SPECIFIED U/S 40A(2)(B) ARE TO BE CONSIDERE D. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FINDING TO THE EFFECT WHETHER THESE PERSONS WERE SP ECIFIED PERSONS AS PER SECTION 40A(2)(B), THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40A(2) CANNOT BE APPLIED. 6 WE MAY ADD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 37 ALSO CAN BE MADE SINCE THE REASONABLENESS OF EXPENSES CANNOT BE QUESTIONED U/S 37 OF THE ACT, MORESO AFTER HAVING ACCEPTED THE RENDERING OF SERVICES FOR WHICH EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT THE AO CANNOT SIT IN THE ARM CHAIR OF THE ASSESSEE AND DETERMINE HOW BUSINESS IS TO BE CARRIED ON. THEREFO RE WE HOLD THAT THE COMMISSION EXPENSES PAID TO THREE PERSONS COULD NOT BE DISALLOWED EITHER UNDER SECTION 40A OR U/S 37 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. DISALLOWANCE MADE TO THIS EXTENT IS THEREFORE DELETED. COMING TO COMMISSION PAID TO SH. AJAY BECTOR AND SH RI. SUNIL BECTOR, SINCE UNDENIABLY THEY ARE SPECIFIED PERSONS AS PER SECTIO N 40A(2)(B), THE REASONABLENESS OF COMMISSION PAID TO THEM CAN BE CA LLED IN QUESTION. THIS IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE BEFORE US. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF T HE SERVICES RENDERED BY THESE PERSONS AT RS. 5000/- PER TRACTOR BY TREATING THE S ERVICES RENDERED BY THEM TO BE AT PAR IF NOT LESS THAN THE SERVICES RENDERED BY TH E TECHNICIANS. THE CASE OF THE LD. AR IS THAT THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THESE PERS ONS WAS MORE ONEROUS CARRIED MORE RESPONSIBILITY AND THEREFORE REMUNERATION PAID @ RS. 10,000/- PER TRACTOR SOLD WAS JUSTIFIED. 11. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND CONTENDED THAT THE TEC HNICIANS RENDERED GREATER SERVICES BEING TECHNICALLY QUALIFIED AND EX PERIENCED, HAVING BETTER REACH AND COMMUNICATION AND GREATER CREDIBILITY, WI TH INFLUENCE ON POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS, THEREFORE PAYMENT MADE TO THEM REPRESENT ED A READY AND ACCEPTABLE BENCH MARK INDICATING FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR SERVICES PROVIDED FOR FACILITATING SALE OF TRACTORS. 12. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE NATU RE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THE TECHNICIAN AND SH. AJAY BECTOR AND SH. SUNIL BECTOR WAS DIFFERENT. A BRIEF NOTE 7 ON THE NATURE OF ACTIVITIES OF THESE PERSONS WAS GI VEN TO THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WHICH STATED AS FOLLOWS: MODUS OPERENDI OF SALE TO CONVINCE THE BUYER, SOMETIMES ONE VISIT IS NOT E NOUGH & MORE THAN ONE VISIT HAS TO BE MADE. CUSTOMERS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AGRIC ULTURISTS & MOSTLY ILLITERATE. FOR CONVINCING THEM, TWO / THREE VISITS ARE NECESSARY A ND THIS COST IS BORNE BY THE SALE AGENTS THEMSELVES. KEEPING IN VIEW THE COMPETITION OF DIFFERENT BRANDS AVAILABLE IN THE MARKET, SALES AGENT HAS TO VISIT THE BUYER A T THEIR NATIVE PLACE, TIME & AGAIN FOR CONVINCING THEM FOR PURCHASE OF OUR PRODUCT. SA LES AGENTS WHO WERE GIVEN RS. 10,000 PER TRACTOR COMMISSION (INCLUSIVE OF TA/ DA/OUT OF POCKET EXPENSES ETC.) RENDER SERVICES BY VISITING TIME AND AGAIN TO ALL THE VILLAGES MENTIONED ABOVE WHICH REQUIRE MORE EFFORT THAN ILLITERATE MEC HANICS WHO ARE GIVEN RS. 2,000 TO RS. 5,000 AS INCENTIVE. ADDITIONAL INCENTIVE (BO OKED IN COMMISSION ACCOUNT ) TO TECHNICIANS (MECHANICS) { WHO ARE ILLITERATE OR VER Y LESS EDUCATED} FOR 74 TRACTORS (IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE COMMISSION PAID TO SALES AGENTS) RANGING FROM RS. 2,000 TO RS. 5,000 PER TRACTOR WHO VISITED ALONG WITH THE BUYERS FOR HELPING THEM IN SELECTING THE MODEL OF THE TRACTOR AND ALSO TO ASSU RE THEM FOR THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS. IF THIS INCENTIVE IS NOT OFFERED TO THESE TECHNICIANS (MECHANICS), THEN, THEY START PRAISING FOR OTHER BRANDS OF TRACT ORS AVAILABLE IN THE MARKET. THEY HAVE NO ROLE IN BRINGING THE CUSTOMERS TO AGENCY FO R SALE OF TRACTORS. CLEARLY THE SCOPE OF WORK OF SH. AJAY BECTOR AND SH . SUNIL BECTOR WAS WIDER THAN THAT OF THE TECHNICIAN. WHILE THE TWO HAVE HAD TO D O ALL WORK TO ENSURE SALE OF TRACTORS IN THE FACE OF STIFF COMPETITION, COVERING 1200 VILLAGES, MAKING SEVERAL VISITS, CONVINCING ILLITERATE VILLAGERS AND BEARING ALL COSTS INCURRED IN THE PROCESS, THE TECHNICIANS HAD ONLY TO CONVINCE THE PROSPECTIV E BUYERS REGARDING THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION OF THE TRACTORS. THE COMMIS SION PAID TO THE TECHNICIAN CANNOT THEREFORE BE SAID TO BE A BENCHMARK FOR THE COMMISSION PAID TO THE IMPUGNED TWO PERSONS. AT THE SAME TIME WE FIND THAT THE LD. AR HAS ALSO NOT SUBSTANTIATED THE COMMISSION PAID TO THEM AS BEING AT FAIR MARKET VALUE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS IN THE PRESEN T CASE, WE HOLD THAT COMMISSION AT THE RATE OF RS. 7500/- PER TRACTOR IS FAIR AND REASONABLE FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE IMPUGNED TWO PERSONS. DISA LLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID TO THE TWO PERSON IS THE REFORE PARTLY DELETED TO THIS EXTENT. IN EFFECT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMI SSION PAID TO SH. PRAVEEN KUMAR, SH. RUCHI ARORA, AND SH. SANJEEV PANDHI IS D ELETED WHILE THE 8 DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION PAID TO SH. AJAY BECTOR AND SH. SUNIL BECTOR IS PARTLY UPHELD. 13. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THEREFORE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED :30/06/2016 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR