TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 957
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....addition of Rs. 2,58,632/- being commission paid to Sabita Industrial Agency ignoring the fact that the same was duly confirmed by the commission agent in response to notice U/s. 133(6) wherein the services rendered were also confirmed. 3. For that the Ld. C.I.T(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 850/- and Rs. 19,543/- being commission paid to Shree Shyam Marketing Service and Jaswant Mourya respectively ignoring the fact that the same was duly confirmed by the commission agent and the services rendered were also confirmed. " 4. The Assessee is an individual. He is engaged in the trading and manufacturing of engineering goods. It was the plea of the assesee that there was a fire in the assessee's business premises in February, 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Agencies as per the books of the assessee which is placed at pages 4 and 5 of the assessee's paper book. The assessee also filed letter of Savita Industrial Agencies addressed to the assessee wherein they have given the details of order number, item that were supplied utilizing the service of Savita Industrial Agencies and the person to whom it was supplied, quantity, value of the order and the commission payable to them and the details of TDS. These documents are placed at pages 6 to 20 of the assessee's paper book. 8. Similarly in respect of Shri Shyam Marketing service the general ledger account and the particulars of transaction for which commission was due and payable was given by the assessee and the same is placed at pages 21 and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eting service and Yashwant Mourya had not responded to the notice issued by the AO u/s 133(6) of the Act, the services rendered by them could not be verified and therefore he sustained the disallowance made by AO. 12. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee has raised ground nos. 2 and 3 before the Tribunal. 13. I have heard the submissions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee and the ld. DR. The ld. Counsel for the assessee took us through the evidence filed by the assessee to substantiate his claim for deduction on account of commission. It was highlighted by him that if the AO wanted to ascertain certain other details from the aforesaid three parties nothing prevented him from enforcing their attendance by issuing summons u/s 131 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng summons u/s 131 of the Act to enforce the attendance of Savita Industrial Agencies. The position of the other parties Shri Shyam Marketing service and Yashwant Mourya are also identical. I also find that expenditure on account of commission to the aforesaid three parties has been claimed in A.Y.2008-09 and allowed by the AO. This fact also goes to show that the claim of the assessee is genuine and calls for no disallowance. For the reasons given above I direct that commission paid to Savita Industrial Agencies, Shri Shyam Marketing service and Yashwant Mourya be allowed as deduction. Ground nos. 2 and 3 raised by the assessee are allowed. 15. Ground no.4 raised by the assessee reads as follows :- "4. For that the Ld. C.I.T(A) erred in ....