ITO 18(3)(3), MUMBAI V. NIRMAL KUMAR JAIN, MUMBAI

ITA 8786/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 83992 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SU JIT BANGAR
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Business expenditure; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 144

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B , BENCH MUMBAI , BEFORE : SHRI R.C.SHARMA , A M & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA , J M ITA NO. 8786 / MUM/20 1 1 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 8 - 0 9 ) ITO - 18(3)(3), MUMBAI - 12 VS. SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR JAIN, C - 6, LAND MARK, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, MAHIM (W), MUMBAI - 16 PAN/GIR NO. : A A CPJ 9177 H ( APP ELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) /REVENUE BY : SHRI SUJIT BANGAR /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SATISH MODY DATE OF HEARING : 1 0 TH SEPT. 201 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 TH OCT , 201 4 O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA ( A .M.) : TH IS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER CIT(A ) , FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 0 9 , IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S. 144 R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES' OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.35,30,213/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS GROUNDS BY THE A.O. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE AO HAD ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT DETAILS, RELEVANT MATERIALS AND SUBMISSIONS WITH RESPECT TO V ARIOUS ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE ASSESSMENT OF TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS NOT AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT SUFFICIENT REASONS, THEREFORE, THE LEGALITY OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S.144 OF THE I. T. ACT IS VALID AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS, THEREFORE, ERRED IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE. ITA NO. 8786 /1 1 2 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OFRS.7,66,597/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE A DDITION OF RS.1 0,78,7901 - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW NET PROFIT. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,70,7221 - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE BALANCES OF DEBTORS. 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,98,442/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION & BROKERAGE. 7. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 90,0001 - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF RENT. 8. FOR THESE AND OTHER REASONS, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO RESTORED. 2. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PERUSED. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN WHOLESALE TRADING OF CLOTH. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR LEDGER/VOUCHERS OR ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF DETAILS ASKED FOR. T HEREAFTER THE AO PROCEEDED TO FRAME ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 READ WITH SECTION 143(3), WHEREIN ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES, BROKERAGE IN COMMISSION, RENT, ELECTRICITY CHARGES AND VARIOUS OTHER EXPENSES. 3 . BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE CIT(A) DELETED M OST OF THE ADDITIONS, AGAINST WHICH REVENUE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4 . IN GROUND NO. 3, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED FOR DELETION OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES. WE FOUND THAT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE ON THE PLEA THAT HE COULD NOT FILE THESE EVIDENCES DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THESE ITA NO. 8786 /1 1 3 DOCUMENTS WERE SENT BY CIT(A) TO THE AO FOR HIS REMAND REPORT AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT, CIT(A) DELETED MOST OF THE ADDITIONS. 5. WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED AS UNDER : - 4.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT. THE DISA LLOWANCE OF RS.18,45,387/ - CONSTITUTES VARIOUS ADDITIONS TAKEN TOGETHER. THE MERIT OF INDIVIDUAL ADDITIONS WILL BE ADJUDICATED IN THE LINES BELOW. (I) AGGREGATE ADDITION OF RS .2,59,891/ - HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF MIS SHREE AMBIKA TEXTILES. THIS CAN BIF URCATED INTO TWO PARTS - (I) RS .2,09,583/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE TOTAL OF THE PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS. 25, 16,212/ - AS PER THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT SUBMITTED BY THE PARTY AS AGAINST TOTAL PURCHASES FROM THE SAID PARTY AT RS .27,25,795/ - AS PER TH E STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A TOTALING MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE LD. AO WHILE CALCULATING PURCHASES AT RS .25, 16,212/ - AS PER THE STATEMENT OF THE PARTY INSTEAD OF THE CORRECT TOTAL OF RS .25,40,708/ - THEREBY ELIM INATING A DIFFERENCE OF RS .24,496/ - FURTHER A DIFFERENCE OF RS.1 ,34,779/ - IS ON ACCOUNT OF WRONGLY BOOKING THE SAID BILL BY M/ S SHREE AMBIKA TEXTILES IN THE NAME OF SWASTIK IMPEX, A SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE, M/ S SANJAY TEXTILES. A COPY OF THE SAID BI LL OF THE PARTY ALONG WITH PA YMENT DETAILS FOR THE SAME BY M/ S SANJAY TEXTILES & A SUBSEQUENT CLARIFICATION FROM M/ S SHREE AMBIKA TEXTILES IN THIS REGARD WERE SUBMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THIS EVIDENCE WAS FORWARDED TO ASSESSING OFFICER DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THIS LEAVES US W ITH A BALANCE OF RS .50,308/ - . THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THAT THIS IS ON ACCOUNT OF THE BILL FOR PURCHASES BY THE ASSESSEE CONCERN ACTUALLY PURCHASED FROM M/S.AMBIKA TEXTILES WHICH WAS MISTAKENLY BOOKED IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT O F MIS SHREE AMBIKA TEXTILES. A COPY OF THE SAID BILL WAS SUBMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, (II) RS .50,308/ - . IT HAS BEEN ADDED AGAIN BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE CLOSING BALANCE OF THE PARTY IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE CONCERN AT RS .13,26,066 / - AS AGAINST CLOSING BALANCE OF RS .12,75,758/ - . THIS IS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE WRONG BOOKING OF THE BILL OF RS . 50 ,308/ - EXPLAINED ABOVE AND EVEN OTHERWISE ONCE ADDED IN CLAUSE (I) ABOVE CANNOT BE ADDED ONCE AGAIN ON THIS ACCOUNT. HENCE I FIND THAT THE DIF FERENCE OF RS .2,59,891/ - HAS BEEN SUCCESSFULLY EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT AND THERE CAN BE NO ADDITION ON THIS COUNT. THE ADDITION TO THIS EXTENT IS DELETED. 6. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PURCH ASES FROM M/S HINDUSTAN AGENCY, THE CIT(A) DEL ETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 48,346/ - AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION : - ITA NO. 8786 /1 1 4 (II) NEXT ADDITION IS OF RS. .4 8 ,346/ - ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AGGREGATE PURCHASE OF RS. .17,60,264/ - AS AGAINST AGGREGATE PURCHASE OF RS. .17,11,91 8 / - AS PER THE STA TEMENT OF .ACCOUNT CALLED FROM MIS HINDUSTAN AGENCY U/S.133(6). THIS IS BECAUSE OF REVERSAL OF DEBIT NOTE DATED 25.02.2006 WHICH WAS EARLIER CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF MIS HINDUSTAN AGENCY BY THE ASSESSEE CONCERN DURING FY 2005 - 06 AND NOT ACCEPTED BY MIS H INDUSTAN AGENCY FOR CLAIM ON ACCOUNT OF INFERIOR QUALITY. A COPY OF THE DEBIT NOTE DATED 25.02.2006 WAS SUBMITTED AS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE VERY FACT THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE CLOSING BALANCE OF THE PARTY WHEN MATCHED WITH THE CLOSING BALANCE OF THE PARTY IN THE BOOKS OF MIS SANJAY TEXTILES AT RS. .5,17, 967 / - EXPLAINS THE ABOVE REVERSAL. MOREOVER, THE SAME DIFFERENCE IS APPEARING IN THE OPENING BALANCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES AS PER THE STATEMENTS OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS ENCLOSED. THIS SUM OF RS..48 ,346/ - WHICH WAS REDUCED FROM THE PURCHASES BY MIS SANJAY TEXTILES DURING FY 2005 - 06 WAS AGAIN ADDED BACK TO THE PURCHASES CO' NON - ACCEPTANCE OF THE DEBIT NOTE BY THE PARTY IN THE RELEVANT AY. THEREBY THE DISCREPANCY STANDS ANSWERED. HERE AGAIN I FIND THAT THE DIFFERENCE HAS BEEN SUCCESSFULLY EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT AND THERE CANNOT BE DIFFERENCE OF RS. .4 8 ,346/ - ON THIS COUNT. 7. WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES FROM M/S BEAUTY ART DYERS & CLEANERS PVT. LTD. AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,2 80/ - , THE CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS : - (III) NEXT ADDITION IS OF RS.5,2S01 - ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AGGREGATE PURCHASE OF RS.5,96,069/ - AS AGAINST AGGREGATE PURCHASE OF RS.5,90.7 8 9/ - AS PER THE STATE MENT OF ACCOUNT CALLED FROM MIS BEAUTY ART DYERS & CLEANERS P. LTD. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THIS HAS BEEN INCORRECTLY WORKED OUT B Y TH E LD. AO AS THE AGGREGATE PURCHASES AS PER THE STATEMENT OF BEAUTY ART DYERS & CLEANERS P .LTD. WORKS OUT AT RS.5,95,9 8 5/ - AS AGAINST ERRONEOUSLY CALCULATED AT RS.5,90,7 8 9/ - BY THE LD. AO. THIS LEAVES US WITH A BALANCE OF RS . 80/ - IN BILL NO. 625 DATED 15.10.2007 WRONGLY BOOKED BY THE PARTY AT RS .16, 8 03/ - AS AGAINST ITS BILL OF RS.16, 88 3/ - . COPY OF SUCH BILL ALONG WITH STATEMENT OF BEAUTY ART DYERS & CLEANERS P. L. IN THEIR BOOKS WAS SUBMITTED AS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. HERE I FIND THAT THERE IS A TOTALING ERRO R BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF AMOUNT OF RS.5,200 / - AND A BILLING DIFFERENCE OF RS.80/ - BY THE APPELLANT. THE DIFFERENCE HA S BEEN ALSO SUCCESSFULLY EXPLAINED. 8. WITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE DELETION, WE FOUND THAT AFTER CALLING THE REMAND REPORT, THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED HIS OWN FINDING, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY LEARNED DR. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATIO N TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF CIT(A) RESULTING INTO DELETING THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCES. ITA NO. 8786 /1 1 5 9. THE AO HAS ALSO MADE AD - HOC DISALLOWANCE OF 20% OF PURCHASES IN RESPECT OF CONCERNS WHO DID NOT RESPONSE TO THE LETTERS U/S. 133(6) AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,53,080/ - ,WHIC H WAS DELETED BY THE CIT(A) BY OBSERVING THAT PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CHEQUE AND CONFIRMATION WERE FILED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THEREFORE, PURCHASES WERE GENUINE, NO ADHOC DISALLOWANCE WAS WARRANTED. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTI O NS AND FOUN D THAT TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE PURCHASES FROM CERTAIN PARTY, THE AO ISSUED LETTER U/S. 133(6), WHO DID NOT RESPOND TO THE LETTER OF AO. THE AO HAS POINTED DISCREPANCY IN THE PURCHASES MADE FROM VARIOUS PARTIES. IN SPITE OF GIVING VARIOUS OPPORTUNIT IES, ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE NOR THE CONCERNED PARTIES WERE PRODUCED BEFORE AO IN SPITE OF NOTICE U/S.133(6) SERVED BY AO. MERELY BY OBSERVING THAT PAYMENTS FOR THE PURCHASES WAS MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AND CONFIRMATION WAS RECEIVED, THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE PURCHASES IN RESPECT OF THESE PARTIES. HOWEVER, NO FINDING HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO THE DIFFERENCE IN THE PURCHASES MADE FROM DIFFERENT PARTIES, WHO EVEN DID NOT RESPOND TO THE AOS LETT ER. IT IS ALSO MATTER OF RECORD THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND PURCHASE BILLS EVEN DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR - PLAY, WE RESTORE THIS GROUND TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECIDING AFRESH AFTER GIVING DUE O PPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 11. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.10,78,790/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GROSS PROFIT. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME AFTER OBSERVING THAT ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE DISCREPANCIES AS POINTED OUT BY THE AO, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR MAKING ADDITION OVER ITA NO. 8786 /1 1 6 AND ABOVE THE GROSS PROFIT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) ALSO RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE GP RATE OF CURRENT YEAR WAS BETTER THAN THE GP RATE OF EARLIER YEAR, THEREFORE, THERE CANNOT BE FURTHER AD DITION. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FOUND THAT DURING THE YEAR THE GP RATE WAS 12.88% AS AGAINST THE GP RATE OF 9.5% IN EARLIER YEAR. KEEPING IN VIEW THE NATURE OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS WHICH WAS WHOLESALE TRADING, WE DO NOT FIND ANY IN FIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,78,790/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GP RATE BY DISALLOWING PURCHASES OF 5%. 13. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.11,96,384/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE BALANCE OF FOLLOWING DE BTORS : - A) M/ S CREATIVE GARMENTS PVT. LTD. : RS.7,16,886/ - B) RS.4,79,478/ - BEING 20% OF THE AMOUNT SHOWN AGAINST M/S ALOK APPARELS RS.23,97,394/ - . IT IS STATED THAT THIS PARTY FAILED TO RESPOND TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO U/S.133(6). BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, CI T(A) DELETED THE SAME AFTER HAVING FOLLOWING OBSERVATION : - 6.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT. I FIND THAT APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT ADVERSE EVIDENCE. THE SALES ARE MADE TO EXISTING PARTIES. CONFIRMATION HAS BEEN FILED. RECEIPTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUES. THESE DETAILS WERE ALSO FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF REMAND PROC EEDINGS. HENCE THERE CAN BE NO ADHOC ADDITION. THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,79,478/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DELETED. 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE REMAND REPORT. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT FOUND THAT M/S ALOK APPARELS HAS FIELD CONFIRMATION REGARDING SALES OF GOODS. PAYMENT WAS ALSO RECEIVED BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE CIT(A) AT PARA 6.3 HAVE NOT BEEN ITA NO. 8786 /1 1 7 CONTROVERTED BY LEARNED DR BY BRINING ANY POSITIVE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE CIT(A) RESULTING INTO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 4,79,478/ - . HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF CREATIVE GARMENTS, AO HAD FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN SALES OF RS. 79,93,047/ - A GAINST WHICH PARTY HAS SHOWN PURCHASES OF RS.87,09,933/ - . THUS, DIFFERENCE OF RS.7,16,886/ - WAS ADDED BY AO. WITHOUT GIVING ANY FINDING, THE CIT(A) HAD DELETED THE SAME. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS PART OF ORDER OF CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, SAME IS SET ASI DE TO THE FILE OF AO AND ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE. AO IS TO DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 15. THE AO HAS ALSO DISALLOWED COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE OF RS. 3,98,442/ - , WHICH WAS DELETED BY CIT(A) AFTER HAVING THE FOLL OWING OBSERVATION : - 7.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF CONFIRMATION OF THE RECIPIENTS OF THE BROKERAGE AND THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE IS REGULARLY, DURING THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS P A YING SUCH BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION EVEN IN EARLIER YEARS, WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,98,442/ - CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN M ADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. IT IS A RECURRENT PHENOMENON FROM THE YEAR TO YEAR. PAN OF THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN GIVEN. THEREFORE THERE IS NO REASON TO DISALLOW THE COMMISSION EXPENSES. THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,98,442/ - IS DELETED. 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RI VAL CONTENTIONS AND FOUND THAT ON THE BASIS OF CONFIRMATION FILED BY THE RECIPIENT OF BROKERAGE, THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION. THE CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AND ALL THE RECIPIENTS OF COMMISSION AND BRO KERAGE WERE HAVING PAN NUMBERS. SIMILAR BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION WERE ALSO PAID IN EARLIER YEAR. DETAILED FINDING RECORDED BY THE CIT(A) HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO ITA NO. 8786 /1 1 8 INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING DISALLO WANCE OF RS. 3,98,442/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT ON COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE. 17. THE AO HAS ALSO DISALLOWED RENT OF RS. 90,000/ - FOR WANT OF CONFIRMATION. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE AFTER OBSERVING THAT THERE WERE CONFIRMATION OF RECIPI ENT OF THE RENT AND THAT THERE WAS NO OBJECTION TO THE AO AS THERE WAS REASONABILITY OF THE SAME. SINCE THE PAYMENT WAS FOR COMMERCIAL BUSINESS PREMISES FROM WHICH ASSESSEE WAS OPERATING DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 90,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF RENT PAYMENT. 18 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED IN PART IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 29 /10 / 201 4 . 29 /10 / 2014 SD/ - SD/ - ( ) ( AMIT SHUKLA ) ( ) ( R.C.SHARMA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 29 /10 /2014 /PKM , PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//