TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 761
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Steel Strips Private Limited. It arises from order dated 31st October, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) and relates to Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Appellant submits that the decision of the Tribunal is perverse being contrary to the facts as M/s AGR Steel Strips Private Limited had accepted and accounted for the payment, which was made through banking channel and in an earlier assessment year, the appellant had paid Rs. 1.25 Crores as commission to M/s AGR Steels Private Limited, albeit no addition was made. Three other assessees had also paid commission to M/s AGR Steels Private Limited during the period relevant to the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2011-12. 3. The appellant in the return for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record including the paper book filed by the Ld. counsel of the assessee. The Ld. counsel of the assessee has relied on the finding of the Ld. CIT-(A) on the issue in dispute and also emphasized on the rule of consistency. We find that the Ld. CIT-(A) has concluded that the assessee has discharged its onus to establish the fact of rendering services by the sub-agent. In our opinion, this conclusion of the Ld. CIT-(A) is not based on the proper appreciation of the facts on record, due to following reasons: (i) The Id. CIT(A) has recorded that the subagent had directly filed reply to the Assessing Officer in response to notice under section 133 (6) of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... but these, in itself, are not documents evidencing the services rendered. Similarly, payment through bank or service tax challan payment by the sub-agent in itself cannot prove that sub-agent actually rendered the services. (iii) The Ld. CIT-(A) has further observed that no cash has been withdrawn from the bank account of the AGR i.e. sub-agent. In our opinion, for discharging the onus that the services were rendered by the sub-agent, it was not relevant to show that cash was not withdrawn from the bank account of the subagent. Assessee was required to produce direct evidences of services rendered. (iv) Further, the learned CIT-(A) has observed that in the preceding year also the fact of services rendered has been accepte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nature of paperwork. No documentary evidence supporting the expertise of the sub-agent in bidding process was filed either before the lower authorities or before us. No detail of the person(s), who on behalf of the sub-agent company interacted with M/s PCGIL, was given either before the lower authorities or before us. The assessee has not furnished any confirmation either from the principal company M/s Hyosung Corporation, Korea or from M/s PCGIL that the sub-agent provided the services of coordination and follow-up in the process of bidding of tenders for contracts. The assessee has merely submitted that coordination and follow-up services only required use of telephone or email or personal interaction, but it has not provided any document....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere not evidence to establish that services were rendered. The Tribunal has highlighted that crucial evidence in relation to four aspects; details of service rendered by the sub-agent, details of expenses incurred by the sub-agent for rendering services, persons whom the sub-agent had contacted in the process of rendering services and letters, report or document submitted by the sub-agent in the process of rendering services were missing and had not been placed on record. There was no evidence to show that the sub-agent had the experts, who had helped in the bidding process or had interacted with the Indian company. No letter or communication from the Korean company or the Indian company to the subagent was filed. 7. Contention of the ap....