JYOTI MANTRI, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 673/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4924 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA CIT DR DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: S L PODDAR
• Keywords: Rule of consistency
• Section: 143(3); 37

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 673/JP/2016 SMT. JYOTI MANTRI VS. ITO , WARD- 2 (2), JAIPUR 1 VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 673/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SMT. JYOTI MANTRI 89, JAI JAWAN COLONY-II TONK ROAD, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 2 (2) JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: ADDPM 4733 A VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY: SHRI S.L. PODDAR ADVOCATE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY :SHRI R.A. VERMA, ADDL CIT-. DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 20/10/2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 /11/2016 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-1, JAIPUR DATED 19-05-2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 011-12 RAISING THEREIN FOLLOWING GROUND:- UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,57,462/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION PAYMENT. ITA NO. 673/JP/2016 SMT. JYOTI MANTRI VS. ITO , WARD- 2 (2), JAIPUR 2 2.1 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMERGES FROM THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER AND HIS OBSERVATION ARE AS UNDER:- (I) THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPE LLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSIGNMENT AGENT AND TR ADING OF COLOR CHEMICALS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WA S OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED A SUM OF RS. 22,5 7,462/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAYMENT IN ITS PROFIT AND LOS S ACCOUNT AS PER THE FOLLOWING DETAILS: SR. NO NAME AMOUNT I. PANKAJ BAKLIWAL 99,967 2. ANIL MAHESHWAI 1,50,110 3. PRATEEK MANTRI 6,56,859 4. GOPAL SHARMA 1,82,248 6. RAHUL MANTRI 7,24,415 6. K.G. COLOURS 1,61,793 7. DEEPAK SHARMA 1,99,623 8. KUNDAN RAM CHOUDHARY 82,447 TOTAL 22,57,462 (II) THE AO REQUIRED THE APPELLANT TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM COMMISSION WAS PAID, THE DETAILS OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM SALES WERE MADE AND COMMISSI ON WAS GIVEN TO THESE PERSONS. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO MADE E NQUIRIES FROM A NUMBER OF BUYERS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE OU TCOME OF THESE ENQUIRIES HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN DETAIL IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER. ON THE BASIS OF THESE ENQUIRIES, THE AO CONC LUDED THAT THE PERSONS TO WHOM COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID HAS NO ROLE IN THE SALES MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND THESE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN CLAIMED IN ORDER TO REDUCE PROFITS. CONSEQUENTLY, T HE AO DISALLOWED THE SUM OF RS. 22,57,462/- CLAIMED BY TH E APPELLANT AS COMMISSION EXPENSES. (III) DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS SUBM ITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT IT HAD ALSO RECEIVED COMMISSI ON OF RS. ITA NO. 673/JP/2016 SMT. JYOTI MANTRI VS. ITO , WARD- 2 (2), JAIPUR 3 39,01,610/- ON CONSIGNMENT SALES AND THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION WAS ALLOWED IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. 2007- 08, 2008-09 AND 2010-11 COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT ITS GP RATE HAS INCREASED B Y 100% IN COMPARISON TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 & 2010- 11. T HE SAME HAS GONE UP TO 5.79% (TOTAL TURNOVER - RS. 4.25 CRO RE) AS AGAINST 2.71% (TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS. 4.29 CRORE IN AY 2010-11 AND RS. 2.94 CRORE IN AY 2009-10) IN EARLIER TWO YE ARS. THE NP RATE IS ALMOST THE SAME AND THERE IS ONLY A SLIGHT FALL OF 0.15%. THE FALL IS MARGINAL AND IGNORABLE. DESPITE CUT THR OAT COMPETITION IN THE MARKET, THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN A BLE TO MAINTAIN THE SALES AS WELL AS THE GP/NP RATES AND T HIS HAS BEEN POSSIBLE ONLY BECAUSE OF THE ENGAGEMENT OF THE AGEN TS FOR FETCHING BUSINESS TO THE APPELLANT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSION OF RS. 22,57,462/- INCLUDED COMMISSI ON OF RS. 6,56,859/- AND RS. 7,24,415/- TO SHRI PRATEEK MANTR I AND SHRI RAHUL MANTRI RESPECTIVELY, THE SONS OF THE APPELLAN T. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE COMMISSION PAY MENTS ARE GENUINE AND THUS THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS TO BE DELETED. (IV) DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, VIDE ORDER S HEET ENTRY DATED 15.12.2015, THE APPELLANT WAS REQUIRED TO FILE: * DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF COMMISSION PAID, * WHAT SERVICES WERE RENDERED BY THESE PERSONS ALON G WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES THEREOF, * WHETHER THERE WAS ANY LINKAGE BETWEEN THE COMMISS ION RECEIVED AND COMMISSION PAID AND IF YES, THE APPELL ANT WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS ALONG WITH DOCUMENT ARY EVIDENCES THEREOF. (V) HOWEVER, NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION. NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN FILED ABOUT THE SERV ICES RENDERED BY THE PERSONS TO WHOM HEFTY COMMISSION WA S PAID. NO LINKAGE BETWEEN THE COMMISSION RECEIVED AND COMM ISSION PAID HAS BEEN PROVIDED. IT HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED B Y THE ITA NO. 673/JP/2016 SMT. JYOTI MANTRI VS. ITO , WARD- 2 (2), JAIPUR 4 APPELLANT WHETHER THE COMMISSION WAS PAID ON ITS OW N SALE OR ON ACCOUNT OF CONSIGNMENT SALES. IT IS NOTED FROM T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT SOME OF THE BUYERS OF THE GOO DS FROM APPELLANT HAVE CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT NO INTERME DIARY WAS INVOLVED IN THEIR PURCHASES FROM THE APPELLANT. (VI) IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT IN THE CASE OF PREMI ER BREWERIES LTD. (2015) 92 CCH 0098 ISCC / (2015) 372 ITR 0180 (SC), IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE HONBLE APEX COUR T THAT: THE QUESTION THAT WAS POSED BY THE HIGH COURT WAS WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGREEMENTS, AFFIDAVIT S AND PROOF OF PAYMENT WOULD DEBAR THE ASSESSING AUTHORIT Y TO GO INTO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE EXPENSES CLAIMED W OULD STILL BE ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. THI S IS A QUESTION WHICH THE HIGH COURT HELD WAS REQUIRED TO BE ANSWERED IN THE FACTS OF EACH CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN SWADESHI COTTON MILLS CO. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 1967 (63) ITR 57 AN D LACHMINARAYAN MADAN LAI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WEST BENGAL, 1972 (86) ITR 439. IN FACT THE HIG H COURT NOTED THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS OF THIS COUR T IN LACHMINARAYAN (SUPRA): THE MERE EXISTENCE OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ITS SELLING AGENTS OR PAYMENT OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS AS COMMISSION, ASSUMING THERE WAS SUCH PAYMENT, DOES NOT BIND THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TO HOLD THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE EXCLUSIVELY AND WHOLLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS. ALTHOUGH THERE MIGHT BE SUCH AN AGREEMENT IN EXISTENCE AND THE PAYMENTS MIGHT HAVE BEEN MADE. IT IS STILL OPEN TO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE RELEVANT FACTS AND DETERMINE FOR HIMSELF WHETHER THE COMMISSION SAID TO HAVE BEEN PAID TO THE SELLING AGENTS OR ANY PART THEREOF IS PROPERLY DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. (VII) IN THE INSTANT CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THER E WAS NEITHER ANY AGREEMENT WITH THE PERSONS TO WHOM COMM ISSION ITA NO. 673/JP/2016 SMT. JYOTI MANTRI VS. ITO , WARD- 2 (2), JAIPUR 5 WAS PAID NOR APPELLANT HAS FILED ANY DOCUMENTARY EV IDENCE WHICH MAY SUGGEST THAT ANY SERVICES WERE RENDERED B Y THESE PERSONS TO THE APPELLANT. (VIII) IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE COMMISSION WAS ALLOWED IN THE EARLIER YEARS. I DO N OT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AS T HE PRINCIPLES OF RES JUDICATA DO NOT APPLY TO THE INCOME TAX PROC EEDINGS AND EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS AN INDEPENDENT ONE. FURTHER , THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL WH ICH MAY SUGGEST THAT ANY ENQUIRIES REGARDING THE COMMISSION PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY THE AO IN EARLIER YEARS. THEREFORE, TH E PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY DO NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE INS TANT CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION. (IX) THEREFORE, LOOKING TO THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS HELD THAT THE APPE LLANT FAILED TO JUSTIFY THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION AS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS TILED IN RESPECT OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THESE PERSONS TO THE APPELLANT AND THUS THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,57,462/- MADE BY THE AO IS HEREBY SUSTAINED. 2.2 CONCLUSIVELY, THE LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDI TION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 22,57,462/- MADE BY THE AO. 2.3 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,57,462/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION PAYMENT FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND THE SAME HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE. 2.4 THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES. ITA NO. 673/JP/2016 SMT. JYOTI MANTRI VS. ITO , WARD- 2 (2), JAIPUR 6 2.5 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE AS SESSEE IS A LADY PROPRIETOR AND SHE IS ENGAGED IN THE CONSIGNMENT / AGENCY OF A LL KINDS OF COLOUR, CHEMICALS AND DYES WHICH ARE MAINLY USED IN TEXTILE INDUSTRIES. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT FOR THE CONDUCT OF BUSINESS, THE ASSESSE E UTILIZED THE SERVICES OF VARIOUS PERSONS/ AGENTS FOR TARGETING OPTIMUM SALES OF HER BUSINESS. THE AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE PAID TOTAL COMMISSION OF RS. 22,57,462/- TO THE PERSONS/ AGENTS WHO RENDERED THE SERVICES FOR ACHIE VING THE TARGET SET UP BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION AMOUNTING TO RS. 22,57,462/- PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE FOLLOWING P ERSONS ARE AS UNDER:- SR.NO NAME AMOUNT I. PANKAJ BAKLIWAL 99,967 2. ANIL MAHESHWAI 1,50,110 3. PRATEEK MANTRI 6,56,859 4. GOPAL SHARMA 1,82,248 6. RAHUL MANTRI 7,24,415 6. K.G. COLOURS 1,61,793 7. DEEPAK SHARMA 1,99,623 8. KUNDAN RAM CHOUDHARY 82,447 TOTAL 22,57,462 THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM COMMISSION WAS PAID FOR WHICH ASSESSEE PROVIDED THE DESIRED DETAILS TO THE AO. THE AO AFTER MAKING ENQUIRY CAME TO THE CONCLUS ION THAT THE PERSONS TO ITA NO. 673/JP/2016 SMT. JYOTI MANTRI VS. ITO , WARD- 2 (2), JAIPUR 7 WHOM COMMISSION HAD BEEN PAID HAD NO ROLE IN THE SA LES MADE BY THEM AND THESE EXPENSES HAD BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE PROFITS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE AO DISALLOWED THE SUM OF RS. 22,57,462/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS COMMISSION EXPENSES. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) DISALLOWED THE COMMISSI ON EXPENSES OF RS. 22,57,462/- ON THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT COMMISSION WAS ALLOWED IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND HE DID NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE PRINCIPLES OF RES JUDICATA DO NOT A PPLY TO THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS AND EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS AN INDEPEND ENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE LD. CIT(A) CONCLUSIVELY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO JUSTIFY THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION AS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WA S FILED IN RESPECT OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THE THESE PERSONS TO THE ASSES SEE AND THUS HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,57,642/- MADE BY THE AO. FR OM THE DETAILS AVAILABLE TO THE BENCH BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS N OTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID THE FOLLOWING COMMISSION TO THE PERSONS ENGAGE D FOR THE ENHANCING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. SR. NO. NAME SALES MADE RATE OF COMMISSION AMOUNT PAN 1. PANKAJ BAKLIWAL 4998339 2% 99967 PANNOTAVBL 2. ANIL 7505480 2% 150110 ADDPM4745J ITA NO. 673/JP/2016 SMT. JYOTI MANTRI VS. ITO , WARD- 2 (2), JAIPUR 8 MAHESHWAI 3. PRATEEK MANTRI 32842931 2% 656859 ARFPM3533J 4. GOPAL SHARMA 9112404 2% 182248 AGXPS1638P 5. RAHUL MANTRI 36220753 2% 724415 BCJPM4771L 6. K.G. COLOURS 16179339 1% 161793 PANNOTAVBL 7. DEEPAK SHARMA 19962329 1% 199623 AXHPS8962P 8. KUNDAN RAM CHOUDHARY 8244680 1% 82447 ACRPC7428D TOTAL 135066255 2257462 IT IS FURTHER NOTED FROM PAGES 1 TO 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID COMMISSION TO THE ABOVE PERSONS F OR RENDERING THE SERVICE IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE TARGET SET UP BY THE ASSESS EE AND THE TDS WAS DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO EVIDENT THAT T HESE PERSONS ARE HAVING PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS (PAN). IT IS ALSO NOTICED FROM LEDGER ACCOUNT PAGE 9 OF THE ASSESSEE'S PAPER BOOK THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD PAID THE COMMISSION TO THE ABOVE PERSONS AMOUNTING TO RS.22, 57,462/-. IT IS ALSO NOTICED FROM LEDGER ACCOUNT PAGE 10 OF THE ASSESSE E'S PAPER BOOK THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TDS AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,25,747 /- WHICH HAD BEEN PAID TO THE GOVT. ACCOUNT. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT IN EARLIER YEARS, THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 673/JP/2016 SMT. JYOTI MANTRI VS. ITO , WARD- 2 (2), JAIPUR 9 HAD PAID FOLLOWING COMMISSION TO THE PERSONS ENGAGE D FOR HER BUSINESS WHICH HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. SR.NO. ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMISSION PAD 1 2009-10 516546 2 2010-11 1287992 IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE AO HAD NOT PO INTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT IN THE MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF TH E ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINESS WHICH INCLUDED CASH BOOK, JOURNAL, LEDGER ETC. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE AUDITED U/S 44AB OF THE ACT FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED THE AUDIT REPORT AT PAGES 23 TO 40 OF THE ASSESSEE'S PAPER BOOK. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE GROSS PROFIT RATE THE ASSESSEE IS BETTER AS COMPARED TO E ARLIER YEARS AND THE SAME IS DEPICTED AS UNDER:- A.Y. SALES GROSS PROFIT GP RATE NP NP RATE 2009-10 29482112 800601 2.71% 538225 1.82% 2010-11 42975949 1165889 2.71% 851881 1.98% 2011-12 42511535 2462741 5.79% 779645 1.83% IT IS ALSO NOTED FROM THE RECORD THAT OUT OF TOTAL COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS. 22,57,462/-, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT OF RS. 6 ,56,859/- AND RS. ITA NO. 673/JP/2016 SMT. JYOTI MANTRI VS. ITO , WARD- 2 (2), JAIPUR 10 7,24,415/- TO HER SONS NAMELY SHRI PRATEEK MANTRI A ND SHRI RAHUL MANTRI RESPECTIVELY. IT IS NATURAL IN INDIAN CULTURE THAT IF THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY ARE COMPETENT TO WORK IN THE BUSINESS OF THE FAMILY , NATURALLY THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE MINIMUM / THE SAME COMPENSATION / BENEFIT/INCENTIVE AS OTHER EMPLOYEES ARE PAID. HENCE, IT HAS NO RELEVANC E THAT THEY WERE PAID THE COMMISSION EXPENSES. IT IS GIVEN TO THEM FOR THE WO RK ACCOMPLISHED BY THEM AND THE TDS WAS DEDUCTED FROM THE COMMISSION E XPENSES AND THUS DEPOSITED IN GOVT. ACCOUNT. BOTH THE SONS OF THE AS SESSEE HAD FILED THE INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND THE SAME IS AVAILABLE AT PAGES 81 AND 82 OF THE ASSESSEE'S PAPE R BOOK. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF TH E ASSESSEE RELIED ON FOLLOWING CASE LAWS. (I) MOBILE COMMUNICATION (INDIA) (P) LTD. VS. DCIT 125 ITD 309 (DEL.) (TRIB.) (II) V.I.P. INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. IAC 36 ITD 70 (BOM)(TRIB )(TM). (III) ANUPAM SYNTHETICS (P) LTD. VS. JCIT 104 TTJ 119 (DE L.(TRIB.) (IV) CIT VS. ISHWAR PRAKASH & BROS. 159 ITR 843 (P&H) (H C). (V) CIT VS. GAUTAM CREATIONS (P) LTD. 171 TAXMAN 271 (D EL.) (HC). (VI) CIT VS. SHRIRAM PISTONS & RINGS LTD. (2012) 206 TAX MAN 41 (DEL.)(HC) (MAG.) (VII) J.K. STEEL & INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT 112 ITR 285 (C AL.) (HC). (VIII) ITO VS. DESH RAKSHAK AUSTHALAYA (P) LTD. 7 ITD 531 (DEL.) (TRIB.). ITA NO. 673/JP/2016 SMT. JYOTI MANTRI VS. ITO , WARD- 2 (2), JAIPUR 11 FROM THE CONSPECTUS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE CASE RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE SUPRA, THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THE GENUINENESS OF T HE COMMISSION PAID TO THE ABOVE PERSONS I.E. 08 PERSONS AMOUNTING TO RS. 22,5 7,462/- INDICATING THEREIN THE PAN ON THE SALES ACHIEVED BY THEM. THUS , IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD AVAILABLE BEFORE THE BENCH THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS RIGHTLY PAID THE COMMISSION PAYMENT TO THE RESPECTIVE PERSONS. IN VI EW OF THE ABOVE DELIBERATIONS, I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THUS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 3.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 /11/2 016. SD/- HKKXPUN ( BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 23 /11/ 2016 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SMT. JYOTI MANTRI, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD- 2 (2), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 673/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR