9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 907X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t claimed any other expenditure regarding travelling in respect of sale in the State of Uttar Pradesh, therefore, commission paid to three parties namely Shri Deepak Kumar Tripathi, Shri Vikash Pandey and Mohd. Danish Hussain are allowable deduction being incurred for the purpose of business. As regards the commission paid to Ms. Preeti Tripathi, Ms. Pushpa Tripathi and Deepak Kumar Tripathi (HUF), it is apparent that these are only the name facilitated by Shri Deepak Kumar Tripathi and Shri Vikash Pandey for inflating the expenditure by the assessee. Therefore, in absence of any material to show that these other persons even are competent to render the service, the claim of commission paid to the related parties Shri Deepak Kumar Tripathi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alance of the assessee. The action of ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire such addition made by the ld. AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A). 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has erred in, confirming the action of ld. AO, by sustaining disallowance of commission expenses of ₹ 13,00,000, incurred by the assessee. The action of ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire such disallowance made by the ld. AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A). 4. The assessee craves his rights to add, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, Uttar Pradesh for supply of irrigation systems. The A.O. also examined Shri Deepak Kumar Tripathi and Shri Vikash Pandey. Since the other parties were not appeared or produced before the A.O., therefore, the A.O. found that the other parties are not doing any independent work but are working with Shri Deepak Kumar Tripathi. Hence, the A.O. has allowed claim of commission paid to Shri Deepak Kumar Tripathi of ₹ 2.00 lacs and the balance of amount of ₹ 13.00 lacs paid to five other parties were disallowed. The assessee challenged the action of the A.O. before the ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed. 4. Before the Tribunal, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that all these six persons to whom the assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecord, therefore, the payment of commission is not in dispute then the same cannot be disallowed without bringing anything contrary on record. The ld AR has further submitted that the assessee has not paid any commission for the sale undertaken in the State of Rajasthan and further no claim has been made for any travelling expenses in respect of sale made in the State of Uttar Pradesh, thus it established that the assessee has availed the services of six persons regarding sales made in the Uttar Pradesh and the commission paid is an allowable business expenditure. He has referred to the statements recorded by the A.O. of Shri Vikash Pandey as well as Shri Deepak Kumar Tripathi and submitted that these persons were admitted to have received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Deepak Kumar Tripathi ₹ 2,00,000/- 2. Ms. Preeti Tripathi ₹ 2,00,000/- 3. Mr. Vikas Pandey ₹ 2,00,000/- 4. Ms. Pushpa Pandey ₹ 2,00,000/- 5. Mr. Mohd. Danish Hussain ₹ 4,00,000/- 6. M/s Deepak Kumar Tripathi (HUF) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars that the commission paid to Shri Deepak Kumar Tripathi, Vikash Pandey and Md. Danish Hussain were in respect of sales of the assessee s product in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Though, there was no agreement or any other supporting evidence except their statement/confirmations. Once the A.O. has examined these parties and confirmed having rendered services then the claim in respect of these three parties cannot be denied. As the business of the assessee for selling of its products in the State of Uttar Pradesh is not in dispute and it is also not in dispute that the assessee has not claimed any other expenditure regarding travelling in respect of sale in the State of Uttar Pradesh, therefore, commission p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
