Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. The Ld. CIT(A), however, deleted the disallowance by observing as under:

"Commission, to Vanessa Trivino, Bujali Santa Clara, Alfredo Marietta Marmetal and Hobart M. Fishcer - Rs.19,52,842/-:

I have carefully considered the facts of the' case, the assessment order in above regard and the evidences filed by the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings. The appellant has given complete details regarding the details of commission, the parties in respect of sales on which commission is paid, debit/credit notes exchanged between these parties and the rate of commission. It may be in some of the cases, these parties may have sold the goods in the territory meant for M/s A.Y. 2010-11 Diamond Sea Jeweller LLC, Dubai, but that does not mean that the services are not rendered. If at all, there is a grievance for the same, it should be between the parties and the appellant, but that does not mean that the services are not rendered. On- the contrary it proves that services for the sale of goods were rendered for which the commission is paid to the parties. It is also not necessary that in every case there would be agreement for the commission. Further, the reference to M/s Basant Enterprises by the AO is also unwarranted as there was no Commission disallowed in the case of Basant Enterprises during the year under consideration. In view of the above when the appellant has given other details to corroborate the same for the year under consideration, such payment has to be considered as having been made for the purpose of the business. The appellant has given prima facie evidences to corroborate its claim of Commission whereas the AO has not brought any other materials except raising doubts by way of assumption and presumption for which such disallowance cannot be sustained. This party is not related with the appellant and also there is no allegation that the payment of such commission has flown back to the appellant. The appellant's reliance on the following cases is also well founded:

i) CIT v/s Genesis Comment (P) Ltd. 163 Taxman 482

ii) CIT v/s Printer House (P) Ltd: 188 Texmen 70

iii) CIT v/s Septu India (P) Ltd. 305 ITR 295

iv) ACIT v/s Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd.' 115 TTJ 145 Following the same, I direct AO to allow such commission and delete the disallowance. This part of the ground is accordingly allowed.

20. Before us, the Ld. DR supported the order of Ld. AO. He argued that the Ld. AO has rightly disallowed the commission payment because the assessee did not produce the any agreement with the payees. The Ld. DR requested to uphold the disallowance.

25. The Ld. CIT(A), however, deleted the disallowance by observing as under:

"Commission to R.K. Sheth, Snehal Sheth and Shreriik Sheth Rs. 24,60,OOO/-:

I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant, and also gone through the details filed by the appellant as well as findings of the AO in his assessment order in the above regard. In my opinion, it is not necessary that in all the cases of the commission, there would be written agreement with the parties. It is also not necessary that salaried employees of the assessee cannot work as commission agent for the work done by them. The fact that in respect of one party commission is given to three persons is also explained by the appellant that there would be several transactions with the same party for which different employees of the company may take a lead for concluding the contracts and therefore in respect of the same party, different contracts or work done by them, they may be paid commission. The appellant has given full details of commission paid, the sales in respect of which commission is paid, the rate at which commission is paid, copies of the returns of the employees are also filed. None of them have been refuted by the AO. There is also no allegation that monies which are given have flown back to the appellant nor the payees are relatives of the appellant. Under the circumstances, payment of such commission to these parties cannot be disallowed as the appellant has prima facie led the evidences to prove its claim. The AO has not examined any of the parties and has only disallowed on the basis of presumption and assumption, which cannot be done following the ratios of the A.Y. 2010-11 decisions referred in above paras earlier. I accordingly, direct AO to delete the disallowance of commission. This part of ground of appeal is also accordingly allowed."

32. Before us, the Ld. DR supported the order of Ld. AO. Ld. DR argued that the assessee has paid commission to lady-agents without proving their services. Hence the Ld. AO was justified in disallowing the commission- payment and disallowance must be upheld.

33. Per contra, the Ld. AR placed strong reliance on the order of Ld. CIT(A). Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has given full details for the sales made by the payees. Ld. AR further argued that the payees have submitted income-tax returns and copies thereof are held on record. Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has paid commission to those payees in past as well and the commission-payment was allowed to the assessee even in scrutiny proceeding conducted by the revenue u/s 143(3). With these submissions, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the Ld. AO and the action of Ld. CIT(A) must be upheld.