9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit embedded from such purchase to be considered for an addition by applying various important decisions rendered on the subject matter of the issue involved whereby restricting the profit element of 15% of aggregate purchase from the alleged sum - From the above facts, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by CIT(A). Accordingly, the ground taken by the revenue is hereby dismissed. Determine the element of profit in the transaction by applying 15% on the impugned purchase - HELD THAT:- As element of profitability in transaction which had worked out at 15% following the various important decisions rendered - we do not find any infirmity in the findings given by the CIT(A) accordingly ground taken by revenue is hereby also dismissed. - Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member And Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] For the Assessee : Shri Sushil Kumar Pransukhka, FAC For the Revenue : Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR ORDER PER SONJOY SARMA, JM: These captioned appeals are filed by the revenue and assessee respectively against the order of ld. CIT(A)-10, Kolkata order dated 24.08.2018 relevant to A.Y. 2014-15. The revenue has raised the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see on information of AO submitted details from said supplier. 4. Assailing the order of ld. AO, assessee went into appeal before ld. CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. 5. Dissatisfied with the above order, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal raising various grounds before us. Similarly, the assessee also preferred appeal against the order of ld. CIT(A) before the Tribunal raising various grounds before us. While going through the appeal of the assessee, we notice that the instant appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation of 11 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We after going through the same and satisfied the reasons behind such delay and condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. 7. First we take up the appeal in ITA No. 2306/Kol/2018 for adjudication. Ground no. 1 taken by the revenue by stating that the ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the relief of assessee by deleting the addition of Rs. 9,38,833/- which was made by the AO during framing of assessment regarding disallowance of commission expenses. In this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Anil Maji had not rendered any service to the assessee firm. The Ld. A.O also reckoned that the sales to the same party in the subject assessment year would therefore logically not require the services of an agent. When the appellant was show-caused by the Ld. A.O. about the denial of any agents in the purchases made by the Party, it was replied by the assessee that the denial may be on account of certain disputes between the agent and the Purchaser, and that as far as the firm was concerned the sales had been affected through the agent, and he had been paid for the services rendered towards the appellant-firm in procuring the business. 2. In appeal, on the other hand, the appellant / Ld. A.R for the appellant-firm has paced forth the following arguments: a. The Ld. A.O's observations about commission was related to sales made to two parties, namely (i) M/s. Devi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. and (ii) M/s. Manoj Kumar Anil Kumar Engg. Pvt. Ltd. In case of (ii) party on verification by Ld. A.O. said party vide their letter filed with Ld. A.O. on 14-09-2016 has categorically stated that transaction with them were made through Sri Anil Majhi. Simply because for transactions made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. AO has, on facts not found any of the payments to be false or made to related parties. It has been held in the case of CIT V. Shriram Pistons Rings Ltd. (2012) 19 taxmann.com 205/206 Taxman 41 (Mag.) (Delhi) Where assessee paid commission to agents for work performed by them, agents were not bogus, and commission was paid by crossed cheque, same was allowable as deduction. . Similarly in the case of Addl. CIT V. Titan Engineers (2011) 8 ITR (Trib.) 748/15 taxmann.com (Bang.), the Hon'ble ITAT has observed that where Commission payment was proved by evidence and assessee achieved a high amount of turnover justifying the payment of commission to procure business, commission was allowable as business expenditure. I also find that the AO has not mentioned anywhere that the payments of the impugned commission were to close relatives or to family members or related parties, or that they were excessive, factors that would weigh against such payments. As already discussed the label of certain payments beyond 0.1% have been termed excessive by the Ld. AO without any proper justification or comparable cases. I find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Printers Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en by the ld. CIT(A) in this regard is not correct. On this aspect, the ld. DR stated that the view taken by ld. CIT(A) is not proper since alleged creditors one of the directors has admitted while taking his statement recorded on oath u/s 131 stating that accommodation entries were made through bogus bills to the assessee during the survey operation conducted u/s 133A of the Act in the F.Y. 2013-14. In such a situation, it is not correct on the part of ld. CIT(A) to delete the addition made by the AO. Therefore, he prayed before the bench to sustain the ground taken by the revenue by setting aside the order of ld. CIT(A). On the other hand, ld. AR stated that view taken by the ld. CIT(A) is correct by allowing relief to the assessee. 12. We after hearing the rival submission of the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, we find that while passing the impugned order, ld. CIT(A) has taken a view that only element of profit embedded from such purchase to be considered for an addition by applying various important decisions rendered by the Hon ble Superior Courts as well as Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal on the subject matter of the issue involved whereby restri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
