ACIT - 21(1), MUMBAI vs. ANAND ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

The learned counsel for the assessee at the outset submits that similar issue in appeal is decided in assessee’s own case in earlier assessment years by the co-ordinate bench in and 6747/Mum/2013 for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 by order dated 11.08.2016. The learned counsel referring to the said order submits that similar disallowance being the commission paid by the assessee for procurement of orders has been disallowed by the Assessing Officer in the earlier assessment years and the Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee. Following the decisions of the co-ordinate bench in the assessees sister concern namely Harrison Garment Division in ITA No.3022/Mum/2012 and 6480/Mum/2012 by order dated 30.04.2014. The learned DR supported the orders of the Assessing Officer. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below and the decision of the co-ordinate bench in assessee’s own case. From a reading of the co-ordinate bench we find that the issue in appeal is decided in favour of the assessee in assessee’s case by the co-ordinate bench for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 where similar disallowance of agency commission paid by the assessee for procurement of orders was disallowed and the Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of agency commission. The revenue could not bring on record any distinguishable facts from the earlier years. Therefore, respectfully following the said decisions in assessee’s own case for the assessment 2 A.Y.2010-11 years 2008-09 to 2010-11 in ITA No.3021&6481/Mum/2012 and 6747/Mum/2013 dated 11.08.2016, we sustain the order of the learned CIT(A) in allowing the claim of the assessee and deleting the disallowance of Commission In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby 4. Dismissed.