TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 907
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....our Welfare, Travelling and Telephone. The action of ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire such disallowance made by the ld. AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A). 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has erred in, confirming the action of ld. AO, by sustaining addition of Rs. 77,410, by wrongly considering the same to be unaccounted cash balance of the assessee. The action of ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire such addition made by the ld. AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A). 3. In the facts and circumstances of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... commission on which commission has been paid. The assessee explained that he has paid commission to six parties total amounting to Rs. 15.00 lacs. On further verification and enquiry conducted by the A.O., it was found that only one of the parties namely Shri Deepak Kumar Tripathi was appointed as authorized representative to represent the assessee before the Agriculture Department, Uttar Pradesh for supply of irrigation systems. The A.O. also examined Shri Deepak Kumar Tripathi and Shri Vikash Pandey. Since the other parties were not appeared or produced before the A.O., therefore, the A.O. found that the other parties are not doing any independent work but are working with Shri Deepak Kumar Tripathi. Hence, the A.O. has allowed claim of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adesh. Once the assessee has established the fact of payment through banking channels after deduction of tax and other parties have confirmed the receipt of commission against the services that the assessee has discharged its onus to prove the claim. The A.O. has doubted the role of the other persons without bringing anything material on record, therefore, the payment of commission is not in dispute then the same cannot be disallowed without bringing anything contrary on record. The ld AR has further submitted that the assessee has not paid any commission for the sale undertaken in the State of Rajasthan and further no claim has been made for any travelling expenses in respect of sale made in the State of Uttar Pradesh, thus it established....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usively for the business of the assessee. The ld DR has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. I have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The assessee has paid commission of Rs. 15.00 lacs to six persons as under: 1. Shri Deepak Kumar Tripathi Rs. 2,00,000/- 2. Ms. Preeti Tripathi Rs. 2,00,000/- 3. Mr. Vikas Pandey Rs. 2,00,000/- 4. Ms. Pushpa Pandey Rs. 2,00,000/- 5. Mr. Mohd. Danish Hussain Rs. 4,00,000/- 6. M/s Deepak Kumar Tripathi (HUF) Rs. 3,00,000/- Total Rs. 15,00,000/- It is apparent from these names itself that the assessee paid commission to Shri Deepak Kumar Tripathi, Ms. Preeti Tripathi and Deepak Kumar Tripathi (HUF) all three parties ....