ITO, WD-23(3), Hooghly, Hooghly v. M/s Majic Overseas, Hooghly

ITA 605/KOL/2016 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 60523514 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AAQFM0045D
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number ITA 605/KOL/2016
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant ITO, WD-23(3), Hooghly, Hooghly
Respondent M/s Majic Overseas, Hooghly
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Department
Tags No record found
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 30-11-2017
Date Of Final Hearing 12-06-2017
Next Hearing Date 12-06-2017
First Hearing Date 12-06-2017
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 05-04-2016
Judgment Text
1 ITA NO. 605/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA SMC BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 605/KOL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011 INCOME TAX OFFICER ................................ .................................APPELLANT WARD-23(3) HOOGHLY AAYAKAR BHAWAN KHADINAMORE G.T. ROAD HOOGHLY-712 101 -VS.- M/S. MAJIC OVERSEAS ............................... ..........................RESPONDENT 57 R.K.M. BYE LANE CHAMPDANI HOOGHLY-712 222 [PAN: AAQFM 0045 D] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI PINAKI MUKHERJEE ADDL. CIT D.R. FOR THE DEP ARTMENT SHRI B.K. SAHOO FCA FOR THE ASSESSEE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : OCTOBER 25 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : NOVEMBER 30 2017 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-6 KOLKATA DAT ED 04.02.2016 AND IN THE SOLITARY GROUND RAISED THEREIN THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN DELETING THE DISA LLOWANCE OF RS.34 78 933/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACC OUNT OF ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF COMMISSION PAID TO THE VARIO US BROKERS. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A PARTNERSHI P FIRM WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF DEP B LICENSE. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILE D BY IT ON 26.09.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1 58 403/-. IN THE PRO FIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FILED ALONG WITH THE SAID RETURN A SUM OF RS.34 78 933/- WAS DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID TO VARIOUS P ARTIES. ALTHOUGH CONFIRMATIONS FROM SOME OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM THE COMMISSION WAS PAID COULD BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT 2 ITA NO. 605/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011 PROCEEDINGS OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF BILLS RAISED BY THE SAID PARTIES AND OTHER DETAILS REGARDING SERVIC ES RENDERED COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE INSPITE OF SPECIFIC OPP ORTUNITY AFFORDED IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE COMP LETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144/143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE AN ORDER D ATED 31.03.2013 WHEREIN HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID AMOUNTING TO RS.34 78 933/-. 3. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R UNDER SECTION 144/143(3) OF THE ACT AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY T HE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN SUPP ORT OF ITS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID:- THAT OUR FIRM M/S. MAJIC OVERSEAS IS A PARTNERSH IP FROM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 57 R.K.M. BYE LANE CHAMP DANI BAIDYABATI DIST. HOOGHLY-712222 W.B. THE FIRM WAS ENGAGED IN THE PURCHASE & SALES OF DE PB LICENSE. WE NORMALLY DEAL WITH LOTS OF EXPORTERS WHO GET DEPB LICENSES AGAINST EXPORT PERFORMANCES FROM GOVT. OF INDIA AS AN EXPORT INCENTIVE AND IT IS USED BY THE IMPORTERS IN LIEU O F CUSTOMS DUTY WHILE IMPORTING VARIOUS COMMODITIES. THE DEPB LICEN CES IS A TRANSFERABLE AND TRADABLE INSTRUMENT PROCURED FROM THOSE EXPORTERS THROUGH VARIOUS BROKERS/AGENTS WHO CHARG E COMMISSION ON THE SAME WHICH VARIES FROM CASE TO C ASE AND WE SALE THOSE DEPB LICENCES' TO THE IMPORTERS THROUGH VARIOUS BROKERS/ AGENTS WHO CHARGE COMMISSION ON THE SAME WHICH VARIES FROM CASE TO CASE. SIR OUR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED AND WE HAVE SUBMITTED ALL THE AUDITED STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS ALONG WITH TAX AU DIT REPORTS TO THE AO. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMEN T. (COPY ENCLOSED FOR YOUR PERUSAL) ; WE HEREBY SUBMIT YOU THE DETAILED STATEMENT OF PAR TY-WISE COMMISSION PAID TDS LEDGER AND BANK STATEMENT OF H DFC BANK SHOWING THE PARTICULARS OF TDS PAID THROUGH THAT BA NK COPY ENCLOSED. YOUR HONOUR SIR DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY OBSERVED AND STATED THAT THE COMMISSION OF RS.34 78 933/- PAID TO DIFFERENT PARTIES ARE NOT BEING EVIDENCED AT ALL AN D BASED ON THE SAME HE DISALLOWED THE SAME AND COMPUTED THE TOTAL INCOME BY DISALLOWING THE SAID COMMISSION PAID OF RS.34 78 93 3/-. HOWEVER WE HAVE ALREADY SUBMITTED THE PARTICULARS OF COMMIS SION PAID TO 3 ITA NO. 605/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011 THE DIFFERENT PARTIES AND TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED THE REON TDS RETURN FILED IN THIS REGARD AND THE CONFIRMATION OB TAINED FROM ALL THE PARTIES RELATING TO THE SAID COMMISSION PAID DU RING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. IN SPITE OF OUR SUBMISSION IN THIS REGARD THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED SUCH EVIDENCES OF THE COMMISSION PAID DURING THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND ARB ITRARILY DISALLOWED THE SAME WHICH IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE ARBI TRARY & UNREALISTIC WITH REGARD TO THE NATURE OF TRADE BEIN G CARRIED ON BY THE APPELLANT. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY CO MPLETING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 144/143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. THE ABOVE FACTS AND GROUNDS CLEARLY DEPICT THAT; T HE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY OBSERVED AND DISALLOWED THE EXP ENSES AND MADE ADDITION AS EXPLAINED ABOVE IN SPITE OF OUR A DEQUATE EXPLANATIONS INFORMATION & EVIDENCES. THE SAID ADD ITIONS/ DISALLOWANCE ARE TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED AND BAD IN LAW BASED ON MERE ESTIMATIONS SUSPICION AND SURMISES AND OUGHT TO BE DELETED. THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ID. ACIT CLEARLY PRO VES THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN HASTE WITHOUT GIVI NG PROPER OPPORTUNITY RATHER THE ID. ACIT SHOULD HAVE RELIED ON THE FACTS AVAILABLE MATERIALS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE R ATHER THAN MERELY ON WIDE SPECULATIONS/ ASSUMPTIONS/ UNREALIST IC ESTIMATIONS. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE SPECIFIED BELOW THAT THE AO SHOULD BE GUIDED BY RUL ES OF JUSTICE EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE AND IN MAKING THE BEST JUDGMENT THE AO DOES NOT POSSESS ABSOLUTE ARBITRARY AUTHORITY TO ASSESS ANY FIGURE HE LIKES. WE MAY REFER TO THE DECISIONS OF T HE CASE LAW CIT VS. RANICHERRA TEA CO. LTD.[1994] 207 ITR (CALCUTTA HIGH COURT) IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS HEREBY PRAYED BEFORE Y OU SIR TO DELETE THOSE ADDITIONS DUE TO THE FACT THAT ALL THESE ADDI TIONS ARE ERRONEOUS AND BASED ON MERE ASSUMPTIONS/ BIASED THO UGHTS AND WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL FACTS AND TOTALLY UNREALISTIC. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO MAKE FURTHER SUBMISSION & PRODUCE F URTHER EVIDENCES/ DOCUMENTS DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS FOR WHICH IT IS REQUESTED THAT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE KIND LY BE PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT. 4. THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FORWARDED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS V ERIFICATION AND COMMENTS. AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. CIT(APPEA LS) THE MATTER WAS VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ON SUCH VERIF ICATION HE SUBMITTED THREE REMAND REPORTS OFFERING HIS COMMENTS AS SOUGH T BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORTS SUBMITTED BY THE 4 ITA NO. 605/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011 ASSESSING OFFICER THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE AS WELL AS THE OTHER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD THE LD. CIT(APP EALS) HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOU NT OF COMMISSION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME WAS DELETED BY HIM FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH NO. 10 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- 10. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS AND THE REMAND REPORT. THE DISPUTE IS A BOUT THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION OF RS.34 78 933/-. THE A O CARRIED OUT INQUIRIES IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS IN CASE OF SIX PAYEES AND IT IS CLEAR FROM THE REPORTS THAT THE RECIPIENT S CONFIRMED HAVING RECEIVED COMMISSION FROM THE APPELLANT. THE AO'S MAIN OBJECTION IN RESPECT OF SOME OF THE RECIPIENTS IS T HAT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW THAT THEY HAVE ACCOUNTED FOR THE COMMISSION RECEIVED FROM THE APPELLANT. ON THE OTHE R HAND THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT DEPB LICENSES ARE PURCHASED FROM EXPORTERS AND SOLD TO IMPORTERS THROUGH BROKERS/COMMISSION RECIPIENTS AND COMMISSION PAYMEN TS WERE MADE AFTER DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE AND COULD BE VER IFIED FROM ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE C OMMISSION RECEIPTS AND THE FACT OF HAVING RENDERED SERVICES W AS CONFIRMED BY THE PAYEES AND PAYMENT OF COMMISSION C OULD BE DULY VERIFIED FORM ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND BANK ST ATEMENTS. IN RESPECT OF SHRI VIKAS KHANDELWAL AND SHRI N. RAJ ESH JAIN HUF IT WAS SPECIFICALLY CONTENDED BY THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DATED 03.11.2015 AS UNDER: 'BUT IN CASE OF SRI VIKAS KHANDELWAL THE PARTY HA S BEEN PAID BOTH BY CASH & CHEQUE AS PER THE VERIFICATION OF T HE AO FROM THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE SAID PARTY IT SHOWS RS. 1 52 280/- (NET OF TDS) HAS BEEN CREDITED TO HIS ACCOUNT INST EAD OF RS.2 79 813/-(NET OF TDS) PAID TO THE SAID PARTY BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT RS. 7 950/- (NET OF TDS) & RS.33 259/-(NET OF TDS) HAS BEEN PAID BY CASH TO TH E PARTY TOTALLING RS.41 209/- WHICH WILL NOT REFLECT IN THE BANK: STATEMENT AND MOREOVER OTHER THAN THIS ALL PAYMENTS HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH BANK DETAILS ALREADY FURNISHED TO YOU . MOREOVER WE HAVE DEDUCTED TDS WHICH HAS BEEN PAID TO GOVT. THROUGH CHEQUES REFLECTED IN OUR BANK STATEMENT C OPIES ALREADY FURNISHED TO YOU. FURTHER IN CASE OF N. RAJESH JAIN(HUF) WE HAVE PA ID RS. 4 25 445/-(NET OF TDS) AND THE AO'S OBSERVATION IS THAT THE PARTY HAS SHOWN RS.4 06 099/- AS INCOME. SIR YOU W ILL APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS HAS BEEN THROUGH BANK; DETAILS ALREADY FURNISHED TO YOU HENCE THE D IFFERENCE AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE OUR MISTAKE. IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS AND METHOD THEREOF BY THE RESPONDENT COMMISSION AGE NTS ARE 5 ITA NO. 605/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011 NOT THE DOMAIN OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS THE PREROG ATIVE OF THE RESPONDENT COMMISSION AGENTS AS TO MAINTENANCE OF R ECORDS. THE AO WAS DIRECTED TO GRANT THE APPELLANT AN OPPO RTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN RESPECT OF THE DISCREPANCIES RELATIN G TO SHRI VIKAS KHANDELWAL AND SHRI N. RAJESH JAIN(HUF) AND C ARRY OUT FURTHER NECESSARY INQUIRIES IN RESPECT OF THE RECIP IENTS. THE AO SUBMITTED A REPORT VIDE LETTER DATED 05.01.2016 STA TING THAT IT IS SEEN FROM THE COPIES OF THE BANK STATEMENTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID COMMISSION TO SHRI VIKAS KHANDELW AL AND SHRI N. RAJESH JAIN HUF. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS AND REPORTS IT IS CLEAR THAT IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM COMMI SSION WAS PAID AND INQUIRED INTO BY THE AO HAS BEEN ESTABLISH ED AND THEY HAVE CONFIRMED RECEIVING THE COMMISSION WITH S UPPORTING EVIDENCE. EXCEPT IN THE CASES OF SHRI VIKAS KHANDEL WAL AND SHRI N. RAJESH JAIN (HUF) THE AMOUNTS HAVE ALSO MA TCHED WHICH HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN VERIFIED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. AS REGARDS THE DISCREPANCIES ALL THE PAYM ENTS CLAIMED IN N. RAJESH JAIN (HUF) ARE REFLECTED IN THE APPELL ANT'S BANK STATEMENT AND IN RESPECT OF SHRI VIKAS KHANDELWAL SOME PAYMENTS WERE IN CASH BUT TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURC E THEREON AND PAID IN THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT BY WAY OF CHEQUE S. THUS THE DISCREPANCIES HAVE BEEN SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINE D BY THE APPELLANT. THERE IS THEREFORE NO MATERIAL ON RECO RD TO JUSTIFY THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE ENTIRE COMMISSION CLAIMED B Y THE APPELLANT. HENCE THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION OF RS.34 78 933/ - IS DELETED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT COMMISSION WAS CLAIM ED TO BE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO TOTAL 35 PARTIES FOR PURCHASE AND S ALE OF DEPB LICENSE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COU RSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS MADE ENQUIRY WITH SOME OF THE SAID PART IES AND ALTHOUGH ALL OF THEM CONFIRMED OF HAVING RECEIVED THE COMMISSION AMOUNT FROM THE ASSESSEE THEY COULD NOT PRODUCE THE BILLS FOR COMM ISSION RAISED ON THE ASSESSEE SHOWING THE NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THEM. HE CONTENDED THAT THE MERE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF COMMISSION WA S PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE CONCERNED PARTIES AFTER DEDUCTING T AX AT SOURCE AND THE SAID AMOUNT WAS OFFERED BY THEM IN THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME ALONE COULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF COMMI SSION AND THE ONUS IN THIS REGARD WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH ON EVI DENCE THE FACTUM OF 6 ITA NO. 605/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011 SERVICES RENDERED BY THE SAID PARTIES AS WELL AS TH E NATURE OF SUCH SERVICES. HE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS AND THIS VITAL ASPECT HAS BEEN COMPLETELY OVERLOOKED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WHILE ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE FOR COMMISSION. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER H AND SUBMITTED THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT OF DEALING IN DEPB LICENSE AND SINCE THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF DEPB LICENSE IS NORMALLY D ONE THROUGH BROKERS EXPENDITURE IS REQUIRED TO BE INCURRED ON PAYMENT O F COMMISSION TO THEM. HE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE PARTIES WITH WHOM E NQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE CONFIRMED OF HAVING RECE IVED THE COMMISSION FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THERE BEING NOTHING ADVERSE B ROUGHT ON RECORD THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER WAS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED WHICH THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED. HE ACCORDINGLY RELIED STRONGLY ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CI T(APPEALS) GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERA TION. 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERV ED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS HAD MADE ENQUIRY FROM SOME OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM THE COMMISSION IN QUEST ION WAS CLAIMED TO BE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON PURCHASE AND SALE OF DEP B LICENSE. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THE SAID PARTIES IN REPLY TO ENQUIRY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CONFIRMED THE RECEIPT OF COMMISSION FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THERE WAS NOTHING FOUND IN THE ENQUIRY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DRAW ADVERSE INFER ENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE MATTER OF ALLOWABILITY OF THE ASSES SEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT INITIALLY SUBMITTED TO THE LD. CIT(AP PEALS) AS WELL AS THE LD. D.R. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE ME HAVE DOUB TED THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR COMMISSION PAYMENT ON THE GROUND THAT SUPPORTING BILLS RAISED ON THE ASSESSEE FOR COMMISS ION WERE NOT PRODUCED BY THE CONCERNED PARTIES. IT IS HOWEVER OBSERVED FROM THE REMAND 7 ITA NO. 605/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011 REPORTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE L D. CIT(APPEALS) SUBSEQUENTLY THE RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH IS REP RODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT SOME O F THE PARTIES DID FURNISH THE COPIES OF BILLS FOR COMMISSION RAISED O N THE ASSESSEE WHICH IN MY OPINION WAS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE SERV ICES RENDERED BY THEM TO THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION. HAVING REGARD TO ALL THESE FACTS OF THE CASE I FIND MYSEL F IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSIO N MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME WA S LIABLE TO BE DELETED. I ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS TH E APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA THE 30 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017 COPIES TO : (1) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-23(3) HOOGHLY AAYAKAR BHAWAN KHADINAMORE G.T. ROAD HOOGHLY-712 101 2) M/S. MAJIC OVERSEAS 57 R.K.M. BYE LANE CHAMPDANI HOOGHLY-712 222 (3) CIT(APPEALS)-6 KOLKATA (4) CIT- KOLKATA (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.