M/S. SHIELD TRADELINKS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8 (2)(1), MUMBAI

This is appeal by the assesses against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 23.07.2018 and pertains to A.Y.2002-03.

The issue raised is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirmed the disallowance of Commission payment of Rs.23,66,028/-. 3. In this case, this is the second round of appeal before ITAT. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I. T. Act, 1961 vide order dated 29.12.2009 making the disallowance of commission payment of Rs.23,66,028/- to M/s. Moira Steels Ltd. on the ground that the payments were bogus. The said disallowance was confirmed by the CIT(A) vide order dated 22.11.2012. The assessee A.Y.2002-03 filed appeal against the order of the CIT(A) before the Hon’ble ITAT taking the plea that the reply from M/s. Moira Steel dated 18.11.2009 was not considered by the Assessing Officer. The Hon’ble ITAT vide its order no. ITA. No.1476/M/2013 dated 08.12.2014 had remand the appeal to the file of the AO to decide the appeal of the assessee afresh in accordance with law for which due opportunity of being heard. In the set aside assessment the AO again referred the matter of statement on oath on the basis of which the payment of commission was disallowed. He held that assessee has not furnished any evidence or supporting proof in respect of service rendered by M/s. Moira Steels Ltd. for which the commission was paid. Hence the AO confirmed the addition. Upon the assessee’s appeal Ld. CIT(A) held that when during the course of survey action u/s 133A of the I. T. Act at the business premises of M/s Moira Steels Ltd, the responsible director Shri Vimal Todi confessed before the authorized officers and that M/s. Moira Steels Ltd. had not rendered any service to the assessee company and had rather given accommodation entry in respect of commission payment of Rs.23,66,028/-, the onus was cast on the assessee. Hence be held that it cannot be held that onus has been discharged by filing mere confirmation of M/s. Moira Steels Ltd. He held that “the assessee should have at least filed the correspondence from the customers regarding services rendered by M/s. Moira Steels Ltd. from time to time in the course of rendering service. In the absence of above he upheld the order of the AO. 2. Against above order assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. I have heard Ld. DR and perused the records. None- appeared on behalf 2