Tribunal overturns decision on commission payments, citing lack of evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s decision and allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the addition made by the AO for commission payments to M/s. Wise Agencies Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found that the evidence provided by the assessee contradicted the findings of the AO and CIT(A) regarding the transactions' genuineness. Emphasizing the importance of thorough examination of evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the addition was not justified, referencing precedents where payments made through banking channels with TDS deductions and supporting documentation were deemed genuine. The appeal was allowed, and the addition to the total income was deleted.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO on account of payment of commission.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of the CIT(A) in Confirming the Addition Made by the AO on Account of Payment of Commission:

The appeal concerns whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition made by the AO regarding the payment of commission by the assessee to M/s. Wise Agencies Pvt. Ltd. The assessee, operating under M/s. Atindra Steel Company, declared an income of Rs. 86,75,039/- and faced a disallowance of Rs. 13,60,869/- by the AO for commission payments to M/s. Wise Agencies Pvt. Ltd. The AO found the submissions of the assessee untenable, leading to the addition of the amount to the total income.

During the first appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the submission of PAN card and registration certificate alone was insufficient to prove the genuineness of the commission payment. The CIT(A) noted that M/s. Wise Agencies Pvt. Ltd. was untraceable and considered an entry provider, non-existent, and bogus. The assessee's failure to produce the concerned persons for verification further supported the CIT(A)'s decision.

Before the Tribunal, the assessee's representative argued that the addition was based solely on the non-receipt of a reply from M/s. Wise Agencies Pvt. Ltd. The representative provided various documents, including a resolution to strike off the company's name from the Registrar of Companies, which predated the assessment order. The payments were made through banking channels with TDS deductions, and an agreement between the assessee and M/s. Wise Agencies Pvt. Ltd. was presented, detailing the commission arrangement for services related to telecom companies and power cables.

The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) failed to examine the evidence provided by the assessee, which contradicted their findings of the transactions being bogus and not genuine. The Tribunal referred to the case of CIT vs. M/s. Inbuilt Merchant Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that no addition is maintainable for non-receipt of replies and non-existence of parties if payments were made by cheque with TDS deductions and other supporting evidence was provided.

The Tribunal also cited the case of Rahul Khera vs. ITO, where it was held that disallowance based on surmises without contrary evidence is not justified, especially when payments are made by cheque, TDS is deducted, and recipient details are furnished. The Tribunal concluded that the transactions between the assessee and M/s. Wise Agencies Pvt. Ltd. were not imaginary or bogus, and the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not maintainable.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of examining all evidence and not making additions based on unverified assumptions. The appeal was allowed, and the addition made by the AO was deleted.

---