Associated Dyestuff Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 756/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1308 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH BEFORE: SHR I S. S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ASSOCIATED DYESTUFF (P) LTD., PLOT NO. A/5, GIDC ESTATE, PHASE - I, NR. SHAH TEXTILE, VATVA, AHMEDABAD - 382445 PAN: AACCA4885C (APPELLANT) VS THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI K. MADHUSUDAN , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: S MT. URVASHI SHODHAN , A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 23 - 06 - 2 016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 - 06 - 2 016 / ORDER P ER : S. S. GODARA , JUDICIA L MEMBER : - THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE INSTANT TWO APPEALS FOR A.Y. 2005 - 06 AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) - 6, AHMEDABAD DATED 16 - 01 - 2012 AND 14 - 02 - 2012, IN APPEAL NO S. CIT(A) - VI/D C IT.CR.1/47/11 - 12 AND CIT(A) - VI/DCIT.CR.1/24/11 - 12 , INTER ALI A CONFIRMING QUANTUM DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION EXPENSES OF RS. 39,81,648/ - AND I T A NO S 480 & 756 / A HD/20 12 A S SESSMENT YEAR 200 5 - 06 I.T.A NO S. . 480 & 756 /AHD/20 12 A.Y. 2005 - 06 PAGE NO ASSOCIATED DYESTUFF (P) LTD. VS. DCIT 2 CORRESPONDING PENALTY OF RS. 15,45,943/ - , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT IN THE FORMER APPEAL AND U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN THE LATTER ONE . 2. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY MANUFACTURES, TRADES AND EXPORTS DYES. IT FILED RETURN ON 31 - 10 - 2005 STATING INCOME OF RS. 23,41,930/ - . IT HAD CLAIMED COMMISSION EXPENSES OF RS. 48,42,185/ - ON TOTAL SALES OF RS. 12,19,20,962/ - . T HERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28 - 09 - 2007 ACCEPTED ALL COMMISSION PAYMENTS EXCEPT THE IMPUGNED SUM OF RS. 39,81,648/ - AS PAID TO M/S. CHROCHEM E FRAPAS AND CO., GREECE QUA SALES EFFECTED OF RS. 1,33,01,959/ - ON THE GROUND THAT ITS OVERSEAS BUYERS HAD REQUESTED TO REIMBURSE 30% OF THE INVOICE VALUE SO AS TO COVER INCREASING COST OF BUSINESS. HE REJECTED ASSSESSEE S CLAIM OF REIMBURSEMENT IN OTHERS. THE ASSESS EE PREFERRED APPEAL. THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER DATED 01 - 0 1 - 2009 AFFIRMED ASSESSING OFFICER S FINDINGS. 3. IT TRANSPIRES FROM THE CASE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSE FILED ITA 1248/AHD/2009 BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL . A CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN ITS ORDER DATED 13 - 05 - 2011 REMITTED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE CIT(A) AS FOLLOWS: - 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CORRESPONDENCE ON RECORD FILED AT PB - 93 TO 104 OF THE PAPER BOOK. WE FIND THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS OF THE CASE PROPERLY. THE ASS ESSEE CLAIMED THAT RECORD SALES HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH THE ABOVE PARTY AND THE FOREIGN PARTY HAS WRITTEN LETTER DATED 16 - 9 - 2004 ( PB - 95) WHICH IS ALSO REPRODUCED ABOVE AND WOULD SHOW THAT THE PARTY HAS REQUESTED THE ASSESSEE TO REIMBURSE 30% OF THE INVOICE I.T.A NO S. . 480 & 756 /AHD/20 12 A.Y. 2005 - 06 PAGE NO ASSOCIATED DYESTUFF (P) LTD. VS. DCIT 3 VALUE TO MEET WITH THEIR INCREASING COST OF BUSINESS AT THEIR END. THIS REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES HAS BEEN NAMED AS COMMISSION. IN FACT, THE EXPORT SALES VALUE HAS BEEN INFLATED SO AS TO ACCOMMODATE 30% OF THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EXPENSES IN ORDER TO AVOI D LOSS IN THE EXPORT TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE REQUIREMENT OF THE FOREIGN PARTY TO ADD 30% TO THE PRICE AGREED BETWEEN THEM AND PREPARED PROFORMA INVOICES. LETTER OF THE ASSESSEE IS FILED AT PB - 99. LET TER OF THE FOREIGN BUYER IS FIL ED AT PB - 10 0. VIDE PB - 101 THE - ASSESSEE QUOTED THE LOWEST PRICE OF THE SALE OF THE GOODS AND VIDE PB - 97 PROFORMA INVOICES WER E PREPARED THROUGH WHICH THE SAL ES VALUE HAS BEEN INFLATED IN THE INVOICE AS AGAINST RATE OF THE PRODUCTS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THESE FACTS WOULD SHOW THAT SALE CONSIDERATION WAS INFLATED IN THE INVOICES AT THE INSTANCE OF THE FOREIGN BUYER SO AS TO MEET OUT THE OPERATING COST OF THE BUSINESS. BUT THE NAME IS GIVEN AS COMMISSION. SINCE THE EXPENSES REIMBURSED WERE VALUED BY INFLATING THE INVOI CE VALUE, THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE ULTIMATELY AS PER THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PUT TO ANY DIS ADVANTAGEOUS POSITION, BECAU SE THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED HIGHER VOLUME OF BUSINESS THROUGH THE FO REIGN BUYER AND THE EXPENDITURE CONSIDERED AS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND FROM PB - 93 I.E. DETAILS OF SALES COMMISSION THAT T HE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED PROPERLY T HE REASONS FOR INFLATIN G THE COMMISSION WHI CH WAS DUE TO MAINLY INFLATING THE PRICES IN THE INVOICES. THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW MERELY COMPARED THE COMMISSION WITH THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR AND REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO WITHOUT GOING THROUG H THE CRUX OF THE MATTER IN ISSUE. SINCE THE EARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING ON THE MA TTER IN CONTROVERSY IN THE LIGH T OF THE SUBMISSIONS, OF THE PARTIES AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THE MATTER REQUIRES RECONSID ERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE ABOVE FACTS SUGGEST THAT THE COMMISSION CANNOT BE DISALLOWED BY COMPARING WITH THE EARLIER YEARS DUE TO THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNE D CIT(A) AND RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WITH DIRECTION TO THIS ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND EVIDENCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHALL GIVE S PECIFIC FINDING ON THE MATTER IN ISSUE AS NOTED ABOVE BY GIVING REASONA BLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE AO. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. I.T.A NO S. . 480 & 756 /AHD/20 12 A.Y. 2005 - 06 PAGE NO ASSOCIATED DYESTUFF (P) LTD. VS. DCIT 4 4. THE CIT(A) TOOK UP CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS TO ONCE AGAIN REJECT THE AS SESSEE S CONTENTION AS GIVEN BELOW: 2.4 1 HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE; ASSESSMENT ORDER AND APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION. APPELLANT CLAIMED AGENCY COMMISSION TO FOREIGN NATIONALS @ 30% ON SOME OF ITS EXPORT SALES. HOWEVER APPELLANT CLAIMED THAT IT WAS NOT COMMISSION BUT THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES. APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITTED COPY OF E - MAIL CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE TWO FOREIGN BUYERS ASKING APPELLANT TO INFLATE THE SALE PRICE BY 30% AND PASS ON THE SAME TO TH E FOREIGN BUYERS. BY SUBMITTING ALL THESE E VIDENCES AND SUBMISSIONS, APPELLANT TRIED TO CONVEY THAT WHAT WAS REMITTED ABROAD TO TWO DIFFERENT PARTIES (THESE ARE OTHER THAN THE BUYERS WITH WHOM AGENCY COMMISSION AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED) WAS NOT COMMISSION ON SALES BUT INFLATED INVOICE VALUE REMITTED T O THESE PARTIES IN THE NAME OF COMMISSION. THE APPELLANT TRIED TO GIVE AN IMPRESSION THAT IF DID NOT LOSE ANYTHING IN THE PROCESS AND DEPARTMENT SHOULD CONSIDER SUBSTANCE OVER FORM. APPELLANT CLEARLY ADMITTED THAT WHAT WAS REMITTED ABROAD WAS NOT COMMISSIO N BUT INFLATED INVOICE VALUE BY WAY OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXP ENSES. ANY FOREIGN REMITTANCE IS GOVERNED BY FEMA AND AS PER THAT TRUE NATURE OF TRANSACTION RESULTING IN REM ITTANCE IS TO BE DECLARED TO RI THROUGH AUTHORIZED DEALERS (BANKS IN THIS CASE). THIS IS SO BECAUSE THE REMITTANCE ABROAD IS NOT FREELY ALLOWED. BY ADMITTING THAT FOREIGN REMITTANCE AS COMMISSION NOT AGENCY COMMISSION BUT REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES, APPELLANT HAD PRI MA - FACIE VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF FEMA. APART FROM THIS, APPELLANT'S CLA IM, OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES IS ALSO - NOT JUSTIFIED SINCE ANY REIMBURSEMENT REQUIRES INCURRING OF EXPENSES WITH DETAILS. HERE APPELLANT SEND THE REMITTANCE TO COMPLETELY UNCONNECTED PARTIES WITHOUT ANY DETAILS OF EXPENSES. THEREFORE IT IS CLEAR THAT TH E FOREIGN REMITTANCE I S NOT REIMBURSEMENT OF EVEN IF APPELLANT'S CLA IM OF A WRONG DECLARATION TO RBI IS ACCEPTED. THE NEXT ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT IT SIMPLY INFLATED THE INVOICE PRICE BY 3 0% AND REMITTED THE SAME TO THE PERSONS AS DESIRED BY THE FO REIGN BUYERS AS MENTIONED IN EMAILS AS PER CERTAIN PAGES OF PAPER BOOK REFERRED BY 1TAT AND THEREFORE IT DID NOT HAVE ANY LOSS. TO EXAMINE WHETHER APPELLANT REALLY INVOICED THESE TWO PARTIES AT 30% MORE THAN THE MARKET PRICE AS MENTIONED IN COPY OF I.T.A NO S. . 480 & 756 /AHD/20 12 A.Y. 2005 - 06 PAGE NO ASSOCIATED DYESTUFF (P) LTD. VS. DCIT 5 EMAILS, SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT TO ITS CASE. SINCE EXPORT WERE MADE TO SEVERAL PARTIES APART FROM TWO PARTIES TO WHOM THE COMMISSION WAS PAID, IT WAS POSSIBLE TO PROVE FROM THE COMPARISON OF SALES PRICE TO THE SE TWO PARTIES AND SALES PR ICE TO THE OTHER PARTIES OF SAME PRODUCT. APPELLANT COULD NOT ESTABLISH ITS CLAIM THAT INVOICE VALUES O F THESE TWO PARTIES WERE INDEED 30% MORE THAN OTHER PART IES. THE ORDER SHEET NOTINGS DUL Y SIGNED BY APPELLANT'S COUNSEL ON VARIOUS DATES ARE QUOTED BELO W FOR THIS PURPOSE - ' 7 - 09 - 2011 - SHRI N M NAGRI, C.A. ATTENDED ALONG WITH SHRI VISHAL SHAH , DIRECTOR AND ISSUE RELATING T O COMMISSION WAS DISCUSSED. IT I S SEEN THAT COMMISSION IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE PAID/REMITTED TO OTHER PARTIES. IF REI MBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES IS CLAIMED BY FOREIGN BUYERS THEN HOW PAYMENT TO OTHER PARTIES FULFILL THE CRITERIA OF REIMBURSEMENT? TO PROVE THAT SALE PRICE TO TURKEY AND GREECE PARTIES WERE INFLATED BY 30%, PRODUCE SALE INVOICES OF SAME PRODUCTS TO OTHER PARTIE S DURING THE PERIOD. ALSO SUBMIT, HOW COMMISSION DECLARED IN REMITTANCE COULD BE CLAIMED AS REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES. ' ' 13 - 10 - 2011 - SHRI N M NAGRI, C.A. ATTENDED AND SUBMITTED DETAILS O N 6 - 10 - 2011 WHICH WERE DISCUSSED. HE WAS ASKED TO PREPARE A CHART O F EN TIRE EXPORT SALES DURING THE YEAR TO GIVE COMPARATIVE RATE. REGARDING OTHER ISSUES TO SUBMIT SPECIFIC REPLY IN ADDITION TO GENERAL REPLY SUBMITTED.' '3 - 11 - 2011 - SHRI N M NAGRI, C.A. ATTENDED AND SUBMITTED COMPARATIVE EXPORT SALES CHART FOR THE YEAR . TO PROVE FROM C OMPARATIVE SALES TO OTHER PARTIES THAT TWO COMMISSION PARTIES WERE BILLED 30% MORE FOR THE SAME PRODUCT.' ' 1 - 12 - 2011 - SHRI N M NAGA C.A. ATTENDED AND DID NOT SUBMIT DETAILS CALLED I N T HE LAST HEARING. HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO PROVE FROM COMPARATIVE SALE BILLS THAT THESE TWO COMMISSION PARTIES WERE BILLED 30% MORE THAN OTHER PARTIES FOR THE SAME PRODUCT. APPELLANT COULD NOT ESTABLISH WITH EVIDENCE THAT THESE TWO COMMISSION PA RTIES WERE BILLED 30% MORE EVEN ON THE LAST HEARING I.E. 2 - 1 - 2001. THEREFORE IT IS CLEAR THAT APPELLANT FAILED TO PROVE THE CLAIM MADE BY IT THAT 30% OF SALE INVOICE VAL UES WERE PASSED ON SINCE THE SAL E INVOICES WERE INFLATED BY 30%. IT IS NOT I N DISPUTE THAT I.T.A NO S. . 480 & 756 /AHD/20 12 A.Y. 2005 - 06 PAGE NO ASSOCIATED DYESTUFF (P) LTD. VS. DCIT 6 FOREIGN REMITTANCES IN THE NAME OF COMMISSION WERE MADE IN THE NAME OF DIFFERENT PARTIES , COMPLETELY UNCONNECTED WITH THE APPELLANT S BUSINESS. ADMITTEDLY, THESE PARTIES DID NOT RENDER ANY SERVICES TO THE APPELLANT FOR WHICH ANY COMMI SSION CAN BE PAID TO THEM. SINCE NEITHER APPELLANT NOR B UYERS NOR COMMISSION RECIPIENTS SUBMITTED ANY DETAILS OF EXPENSES FOR WHICH REIMBURSEMENT CAN BE CLAIMED FROM THE APPELLANT, THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES REMITTED AS AGENCY COMMI SSION IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS . ACCORDINGLY CLAIM OF @30% OF I NVOICE VALUE EITHER AS COMMISSION OR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS HENCE CANNOT BE ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 37 (1). AS REGARDS APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF PA SSING ON OF 30% INFLATED INVOI CE VALUE TO THE NOMINEES OF BUYERS, DESPIT E SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES GRANTED AS NOTED EARLI ER, APPELLANT WAS NOT ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THESE TWO PARTIES WERE IN FACT INVOICED 30% MORE THAN OTHER PARTIES FOR THE SAME PRODUCT. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, ALL THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT WHILE CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF 30% COMMISSION ARE FOUND TO BE UNSUBSTANTIATED. ON THE ONE HAND APPEAL IS CLAIMING REMITTANCE OF COMMISSION IS RBI, THE SAME IS CLAIME D AS REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT. NONE OF THE CLAIM IS SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL. THERE IS NO BUSINESS FOR MAKING REMITTANCES CLAIMING THE SAME AS EXPENSES. EVEN IF APPELLANT'S ARGUMENT OF SUBSTANCE OVER FORM IS CONSIDERED, THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS. WHAT I S NOT DIS PUTED IS REMITTANCE OF MONEY ABROAD BUT THE PURPOSE OF REMITTING T HE SAME IS NOT ESTABLISHED AT AL L THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ONLY VIOLATED PROVISIONS OF FEMA BY WRONGLY DECLARING THE FOREIGN REMITTANCE AS COMMISSION BUT ALSO NOT ABLE TO PROVE ANY BUSINES S PURPOSE OF SUCH REMITTANCE. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, I'M OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE FOREIGN REMITTANCE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IS NEITHER ALLOWABLE AS COMMISSION NOR AS REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES. THE LAST CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT OF PASS ING ON OF 30% INFLATED INVOICE TO THESE TWO PARTIES IS ALSO NOT ESTABLISHED AS DISCUSSED EARLIER. THEREFORE APPELLANT CLAIMED THE EXPENSES WHICH WERE NOT INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND HENCE THE SAME IS NOT ALLOWABLE. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. CASE FILE PERUSED. BOTH THE PARTIES STRONGLY ARGUE AGAINST AND IN FAVOUR OF THE IMPUGNED I.T.A NO S. . 480 & 756 /AHD/20 12 A.Y. 2005 - 06 PAGE NO ASSOCIATED DYESTUFF (P) LTD. VS. DCIT 7 COMMISSION DISALLOWANCE AS MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE DO NOT DEEM IT APPR OPRIATE TO RE - NARRATE THE ENTIRE FACTS FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. IT HAS ALREADY COME ON RECORD THAT THE LD. CO - ORDINATE BENCH HAS ALREADY ACCEPTED ASSESSEE S CONTENTION IN PRINCIPLE AFTER APPRECIATING ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS THAT THE RELEVANT SALE CONSIDERA TION WAS INFLATED @ 30% AT THE INSTANCE OF THE FOREIGN BUYERS TO MEET OPERAT IVE COST OF THE BUSINESS AND NOMENCLATURE THEREOF WAS GIVEN AS COMMISSION. THE REVENUE FAILS TO REBUT THIS CRUCIAL FINDING. SHRI M A DHUSUDAN (LD. CIT - DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE) VEHEMENTLY ARGUES THAT THE EARLIER BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL DID NOT CONSIDER ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD. WE FIN D NO MERIT IN THIS CONTENTION AS THE EARLIER ORDER HAS ALREADY ATTAINED FINALITY . IT TRANSPIRES THAT THE CIT(A) OBSERVES IN HI S ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE THAT ASSESSEE S PAYMENTS PRIMA FACIE VIOLATES FEMA ACT AND RBI GUIDELINES. THERE IS NOT EVEN AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD AS TO WHETHER ANY SUCH ACTION STAND INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE OR NOT. THE CIT(A) S FINDINGS ARE THERE FORE NOT BASED ON ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. HE THEREAFTER HOLDS THAT ASSESSEE S PAYEES DID NOT RENDER ANY SERVICES. THIS REASON ALSO FAILS TO IMPRESS US AS WE ARE DEALING WITH AN INFLATED EXPENDITURE CASE WHEREIN THE AMOUNTS OTHER THAN THAT FORMING 30% IN QUESTION ALREADY STAND ACCEPTED. THE CIT(A) IS FURTHER FOUND TO HAVE COMPARED THE COMMISSION PAYMENTS. WE REITERATE THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER ROUND HAS ALREADY TURNED DOWN THIS COMPARISON BETWEEN COMMISSION PAYMENT AND THE IMPUGNED SUM GIVEN THE VERY NOMENCLATURE DESPITE THE FACT THE LATTER ONE IS A CASE OF REIMBURSEMENT. WE ACCORDINGLY DO NOT ANY REASON TO CONCUR I.T.A NO S. . 480 & 756 /AHD/20 12 A.Y. 2005 - 06 PAGE NO ASSOCIATED DYESTUFF (P) LTD. VS. DCIT 8 WITH THE LOWER APPELLATE FINDING IN VIEW OF THIS TRIBUNAL S ORDER IN EARLIER ROUND OF LITIGATION. THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSIO N EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 39,81,648/ - STANDS DELETED. ITA 480/AHD/2012 IS ACCEPTED. 6. WE COME TO ASSESSEE S LATTER APPEAL ITA 756/AHD/2012 CHALLENGING ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORI TIES IN IMPOSING SECTION 271(1)(C) PENALTY OF RS. 15,45,943/ - . WE REI TERATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY SUCCEEDED IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS. THIS LEAVES THE IMPUGNED PENALTY TO BE HAVING NO LEGS TO STAND. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. ITA 756/AHD/2012 IS ALLOWED. 7. THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS IN B OTH THESE APPEALS. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 30 - 06 - 201 6 SD/ - SD/ - ( MANISH BORAD ) ( S. S. GODARA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 30 /06 /2016 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. I.T.A NO S. . 480 & 756 /AHD/20 12 A.Y. 2005 - 06 PAGE NO ASSOCIATED DYESTUFF (P) LTD. VS. DCIT 9 BY ORDER/ , / ,