DCIT, CIRCLE- 36(1), NEW DELHI vs. COMMCORP INTERNATIOANL LLP, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4158/Del/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 The DCIT, Circle 36(1), New M/s Comcorp International LLP, Plot No. 09, 1st floor, Gujranwalan Town, Delhi Delhi vs. 110009 PAN AAHFC 7491 E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri V.K Bindal, CA Ms Rinky Sharma, CA For Revenue : Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 27.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 16.06.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. This appeal has been filed against the order of CIT(A)-12 New Delhi dated 19.01.2018 for AY 2013-14. 2. The grounds raised by the revenue are as under:- 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in the facts and circumstances of the case by not appreciating the facts of the case properly. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in admitting additional evidence as stated in para 6.5 and 6.6 of his order, without following the procedure laid down in Rule 46A(1) of the IT. Rules, 1962. 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in not following the mandate of the Rule 46A(2) of IT Rules, 1962 as he has not recorded the reasons in writing for the admission of the additional evidence. 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the AO's efforts to pierce the corporate veil of working out the share of the assessee firm directly and indirectly in the company which has advanced the loan to the firm.

ITA No. 4158/Del/2018 5. Whether the Id. CIT(A) is correct in not appreciating that the provisions of section 2(22 (e) are to be followed in letter in spirit, and need to be applied by digging out the shares indirectly held by the partners of the assessee firm through another corporate entity, to work out the total percentage of shares held by the partner of the assessee firm in the company advancing loan to the assessee firm. 6. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in not appreciating that the AO has disallowed the expenditure by pointing out the discrepancies in bills etc, raised by the commission agent and Ld. CIT(A) has not given cogent reasons for accepting the genuineness of the evidence as claimed by the assessee. 7. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and. in the facts by deleting the addition of Rs. 4,58, 10,307 / made by the AO on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the LT. Act, 1961 by not considering the facts that the loan advanced from M/s RBRL Agro Commodities in the form of unsecured loan by the assessee is not a business transaction as there is no purchase or sale between M/s RBRL Agro Commodities and the assessee 8. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in the facts by deleting the addition of Rs. 30,48,657 / made by the AO on account of brokerage and commission paid to various brokers by not considering the facts that ample opportunities were afforded to the assessee at the time of assessment proceedings to substantiate the claim and to prove the genuineness of the payments made on account of commission to the brokers. In addition to this, AO issued summons us 131 of the Act to the parties but none appeared and the figures appearing in the bills were not proportionate to the rates and the party name was not mentioned in the brokerage/ commission bills. Ground no. 1 to 3 of Revenue 3. The ld. Senior DR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in the facts and circumstances of the case by not appreciating the facts of the case properly and in admitting additional evidence as stated in para 6.5 and 6.6 of his order, without following the procedure laid down in Rule 46A(1) of the IT. Rules, 1962. He further submitted that the mandate of the Rule 46A(2) of IT Rules, 1962 as he has not recorded the reasons in writing for the admission of the additional evidence. 4. Replying to the above, the learned assessee representative (AR) submitted that the ld. CIT(A) in para 6.5 reproduced the details of additional evidence filed by the assessee vide submission dated 12.09.2017 under rule 86A of I.T Rules and a report was called from the Assessing Officer which was submitted by the Assessing Officer on 26.12.2017. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has admitted additional evidences after considering the factual position that the assessee was prevented from filing these papers during assessment proceedings due to bona fide reason and hence there is no defect in admitting and considering the additional evidence of assessee under rule 46A of the rules by the ld. CIT(A). 5. On careful consideration of above submissions we note that the ld. CIT(A) has dealt the issue of admission of additional evidences in para 6.5 to 6.7 of first appellate 2

ITA No. 4158/Del/2018 order and he has allowed the Assessing Officer to submit his remand report and assessee was also allowed to submit his rejoinder to the remand report. In this case the Assessing Officer has passed assessment order after taking on record reply of assessee vide dated 18.03.2016 but the assessee was not allowed to submit any explanation regarding his observations in last para at page 6 of assessment order. Be that as it may, the assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT(A) and availed opportunity to file additional evidence under rule 46A of the Rules by stating that the assessee was not provided due opportunity to produce documentary evidences by the Assessing Officer. Although the Assessing Officer in the remand report objected to the admission of additional evidence but did not comment on the merits of the additional evidences and cause shown by the assessee which prevented the assessee from filing relevant documentary evidences before the Assessing Officer. Therefore in our humble understanding the ld. CIT(A) has not flouted the provision of rule 46A of the Rules, rather he has properly followed the said rule before admitting and considering the additional evidence. Therefore no interference is called for in the order of ld. CIT(A) in this regard. Accordingly, the grounds no. 1 to 3 are dismissed. Grounds no. 4 to 7 of Revenue 6. The ld. Senior DR submitted that the AO's efforts to pierce the corporate veil of working out the share of the assessee firm directly and indirectly in the company which has advanced the loan to the firm. He further submitted that the Id. CIT(A) was not correct in not appreciating that the provisions of section 2(22) (e) are to be followed in letter in spirit, and need to be applied by digging out the shares indirectly held by the partners of the assessee firm through another corporate entity, to work out the total percentage of shares held by the partner of the assessee firm in the company advancing loan to the assessee firm. He also submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was also not correct in ignoring a very relevant fact that the AO has disallowed the expenditure by pointing out the discrepancies in bills etc, raised by the commission agent and Ld. CIT(A) has not given cogent reasons for accepting the genuineness of the evidence as claimed by the assessee. Lastly, the ld. Senior DR also pointed out that in the facts by deleting the addition of Rs. 4,58, 10,307 / made by the AO on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the LT. Act, 1961 by not considering the facts that the loan advanced from M/s RBRL Agro Commodities in the form of unsecured loan by the assessee is not a business transaction as there is no purchase or sale between M/s RBRL Agro Commodities and the assessee. The ld. Senior DR finally submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee without any basis therefore the first appellate order may kindly be set aside by restoring that of the Assessing Officer. 7. Replying to the above, the ld AR strongly supported the first appellate order and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has appreciated the entire facts and circumstances of the 3

ITA No. 4158/Del/2018 issue and thereafter rightly held that the trade deposit being a business/commercial transaction carried out of commercial expediency did not amount to a loan or advance to fall within the rigor of section 2(22)(e) of the Act and hence, he rightly deleted the baseless addition made by the Assessing Officer. 8. On careful consideration of above submission, at the very outset, we note that the ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee with following observations and findings. 6.8 I have considered the facts of the issue, basis of additions made by the AO and the submissions of the appellant and the comments of the AO in the remand report. As per provisions of section 2(22)(e), dividend includes any payment by a company not being a company in which the public are substantially interested of any sum whether: a) by way of advance or loan to a shareholder being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares holding not less than 10% of the voting power or b) to any concern in which such shareholder is a member or a partner and in which he has a substantial interest (hereinafter in this clause referred to as the said concern) or c) any payment by any such company on behalf, or for the individual benefit, of any such shareholder, to the extent to which the company in either case possesses accumulated profits. 6.9 The objection of the AO is that Sh Jai Prakash Singhal was holding 9.18% shares in RBRL Agro Commodities Limited and 9.38% in Amrit Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. At the same time, M/s Amrit Polyplast Pvt. Ltd was holding 19.016% shares in RBRL Agro Commodities Limited. The AO has considered the beneficial shareholding of Sh Jai Prakash Singhal on the basis of proportionate shareholding of M/s Amrit Polyplast Pvt. Ltd in RBRL Agro Commodities Limited. As such the AO has worked out and added proportionate beneficial shareholding of 1.78% to the actual shareholding of Sh Jai Prakash Singhal of 9.38% in RBRL Agro Commodities Limited. In this manner, the total shareholding of Sh. Jai Prakash Singhal was worked out to 10.96% in RBRL Agro Commodities Limited. The facts of the case are:- a) During the appellate proceedings, it has been noted from the records that the name of M/s Amrit Polyplast Pvt. Ltd is registered in the Register of Members as the holder of shares of RBRL Agro Commodities Limited. M/s Amrit Polyplast Pvt. Ltd being the actual owner, is entitled to any advantage from its ownership and holding of shares.M/s Amrit Polyplast Pvt. Ltd is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act. Since it is a body corporate and a separate legal entity, as such it could become a member of another company and was also eligible to buy, hold and sell shares of other company in its own name both as per the Companies Act and Income Tax Act. Thus M/s Amrit Polyplast Pvt. Ltd was both the registered and legal/beneficial shareholder holding 19.02% shares in RBRL Agro Commodities Limited. The income earned by the said Company was assessed in its hands which was also required to file its 4

ITA No. 4158/Del/2018 return of income and the profits thereafter became the reserves and surplus of the company. b) Whereas a person is a beneficial owner/legal owner who actually owns shares by making investments of its own funds but his name is not registered in the Register of Members. In the present appeal, it is noted that Sh Jai Prakash Singhal could not be a beneficial owner of shares held by M/s Amrit Polyplast Pt Ltd becauseAmrit Polyplast Pt Ltd had purchased / held shares of M/s RBRL Agro Commodities Limited out of its own funds and that the investment in shares duly appeared in the Audited Balance Sheet of M/s Amrit Polyplast Pvt Ltd and also in the list of shareholders/ ROC annual return. Section 187 (c) of the Companies Act also draws distinction between the registered shareholder and a person holding a beneficial interest in any share. The section says that a person who holds a beneficial interest in a share or a class of shares of a company shall, within thirty days from the commencement of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1974, or within thirty days after his becoming such beneficial owner, whichever is later, make a declaration to the company specifying the nature of his interest, particulars of the person in whose name the shares stand registered in the books of the company and such other particulars as may be prescribed. c) The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has discussed the issue of registered owner and beneficial owner of shares in the case of CIT vs National Travel Services [20111 202 Taxman 327 (Delhi). The High Court has held that if the partnership firm which purchased shares is not treated as shareholder merely because of the legal compulsion, the shares could not be allotted to the said partnership firm. It was a non-legal entity and is not a person capable of being a 'member' within the meaning of s. 47 of the Companies Act. Obviously then, with the purchase of shares by the firm in the name of its partners, the partnership firm was not a registered shareholder and being a beneficial owner, the said firm was to be treated as shareholder. 6.10 In view of this, it is held that AO has wrongly considered the shareholding of M/s Amrit Polyplast Pvt. Ltd in the shares of M/s RBRL Agro Commodities Limited as the beneficial shareholding of Sh Jai Prakash Singhal on proportionate basis. 6.11 The AO has again wrongly applied the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court given in the case of CIT vs National Travel Services [20111 202 Taxman 327 [supra] to support the working of beneficial shareholding. In this case, a partnership firm had purchased certain shares of a company. However, due to restrictions in the Companies Act, such shares could not be registered in the name of the partnership firm and thus were registered in the name of its partners. The High Court held on the facts of the case that the partnership firm was a beneficial ownerof the shareholder and thus the said firm was treated as a shareholder under s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. 6.12 As discussed earlier in the present appeal, M/s Amrit Polyplast Pvt. Ltd is both the registered and beneficial shareholder holding 19.02% shares in RBRL Agro Commodities Limited as part of its own investment. It is a body corporate and separate legal entity 5

ITA No. 4158/Del/2018 and has made investment in shares out of its own funds. The shares were allotted to the said company and its name duly appeared in the list of members within the meaning of s. 47 of the Companies Act. In view of these facts, the ratio of this decision does not support the additions made by the AO to work out the beneficial ownership on proportionate basis. 6.13 The assessee has further pleaded that it was purely a business/commercial transaction to meet the conditions imposed by Allahabad Bank and that it was not for the personal benefits of the shareholders. The amount was taken during the ordinary course of business for business expediencies. It has been explained that the assessee is a limited liability partnership incorporated on 14-11-2011 with LIP Identity Number AAA- 6870 with four partners namely Sh Jai Prakash Singhal (35% share), Sh Sanjay Singhal (35% share), Sh Sanjeev Kumar Garg (25% share) and Sh Parag Gupta (5% share). It has been noted that Sh Jai Prakash Singhal and Sh Sanjay Singhal were two Non- designated partners as per the LLP Agreement. The assessee LLP to meet its financial requirements, had applied to Allahabad Bank for credit facilities. The Allahabad Bank sanctioned total credit limit of Rs. 51 Crores vide Sanction Letter dated 20-11-2012. As per condition no 6 (page no. 4) of the Sanction Letter dated 20-11-2012, the bank asked the assessee LLP to infuse funds by way of unsecured loan and not to withdraw the same from the business till the pendency of the Bank Loan. As a matter of business compulsion, the assessee took an inter-corporate deposit from its business associate RBRL Agro Commodities Limited out of commercial expediency to meet the conditions imposed by Allahabad Bank. The assessee has submitted a photocopy of resolution passed by the Board of Directors of RBRL Agro Commodities Limited on 20-05-2012, a copy of Loan agreement executed between the two parties, a copy of account of the said company (RBRL) from the books of the assessee and a set of audited final account of the said company (RBRL). 6.14 Further the assessee has submitted that Sh Jai Prakash Singhal along with his family members had mortgaged their personal properties with the State Bank of Mysore for taking credit facilities of Rs. 32.50 Crores for RBRL Agro Commodities Ltd. They had also given personal guarantees to the bank for the benefit of the company. Thus the arrangement between the assessee and the company was merely for the sake of convenience arising out of business expediency. A photocopy of Bank Sanction Letter dated 19.01.2013 issued to RBRL Agro Commodities Ltd for the financial year 2012-13 giving complete details of immovable properties and the personal guarantees was also placed on record. 6.15 As they were in need of funds for the assessee, the company was unable to release the properties from the mortgage. When in such a situation, for retaining the benefit of loan availed from the bank, a decision was taken by RBRL Agro Commodities Ltd to give an inter-corporate deposit to the assessee. Such decision was not to give gratuitous advance to its shareholder but to protect the business interest of the company. The High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2012) 246 CTR 0493 held that the loan advanced by company to shareholder in compensation of shareholder mortgaging his immovable property for enabling company to secure bank loan cannot be treated as deemed dividend under s. 2(22)(e). 6.16 The Chandigarh ITAT Bench has also held in case of DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers reported in (2007) 106 TTJ (Ch) 250 that the amount was advanced during the ordinary 6

ITA No. 4158/Del/2018 course of business for business expediencies. So it could not be said that there was an intention of the company to give a loan, such advance cannot be treated as loan and advance and the money so received cannot be treated as deemed dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)(e). 6.17 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "S.A. Builders Vs. CIT" (2007) 288 IT 1 (SC) in the context of expenditure allowable w's.37 of the Act has observed that what is to be seen as to whether the assessee advanced loan to its sister concern or a subsidiary as a measure of commercial expediency. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that "for the purpose of business" includes expenditure voluntarily incurred for commercial expediency and it is immaterial if a third party also benefits thereby. In the present appeal also, the assessee received the trade deposit from RBRL Agro Commodities Limited only on account of business compulsions as imposed by Allahabad Bank prior to release of Credit Facilities. 6.18 The CBDT has recently issued a Circular No. 19/2017 dated 12th June, 2017 which states in the concluding para that trade advances, which are in the nature of commercial transactions would not fall within the ambit of the word 'advance' in section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 6.19 Keeping in view the Circular No 19/2017 dated 12th June 2017 read with decision of the Apex Court in the case of 'S.A. Builders Vs. CIT (2007) 288 IT 1 (SC), I hold that the trade deposit being a business/commercial transaction carried out of commercial expediencydid not amount to a loan or advance as envisaged in section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act in the hands of the assesseeLLP. 6.20 Therefore, the addition of Rs.4,58,10,3071- made on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act in the hands of the assessee is deleted and ground of appeal no. 1,1.1, 1.2, 1.3 & 1.4 are consequentially allowed. 9. From the assessment as well as remand report of the Assessing Officer, we note that the objection of the Assessing Officer was that Shri Jai Prakash Singhal was holding 9.18% shares of M/s. RBRL Agro Commodities Ltd. and 9.38% share in Amrit Polyplast Pvt.Ltd. similarly M/s. Amrit Polyplast P. Ltd. was holding 19.06% share in RBRL and considering the beneficial share holding of Shri Jai Prakash Singhal on the basis of propionate share holding of M/s. Amrit Polyplast P. Ltd. RBRL Agro Commodities ltd., the Assessing Officer had worked out and added propionate beneficial share holding of 1.78% to the actual share holding of Shri. Jai Prakash Singhal of 9.38% in RBRL Agro Commodities Ltd. and the holding of Shri Singhal was worked out to 10.96% in RBRL Agro Commodities Ltd. 10. The ld. CIT(A) considered that intention of provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act and rightly held that section 187(c) of companies Act also draws distinction between the registered share holder and a person holding beneficial interest in any share. The ld. CIT(A) also considered the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. National Travel Services (supra) wherein it was held that if the partnership firm which purchased shares is not treated as shareholder merely because of the legal compulsion, the shares could not be allotted to the said partnership firm. It 7

ITA No. 4158/Del/2018 was a non-legal entity and is not a person capable of being a 'member' within the meaning of s. 47 of the Companies Act. Obviously then, with the purchase of shares by the firm in the name of its partners, the partnership firm was not a registered shareholder and being a beneficial owner, the said firm was to be treated as shareholder. Thereafter the ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer wrongly considered the share holding of M/s. Amrit Polyplast P. Ltd. in the shares of M/s RBRL Agro Commodities Ltd. as the beneficial share holding of Shri Jai Prakash Singhal on propionate basis. 11. Further, in the subsequent operative part of first appellate order the ld. CIT(A) evaluated the other facts of the case and noted that Shri Jai Prakash Singhal along with his family members had mortgaged their personal property with the State Bank of Mysore for taking credit facilities of Rs 32.50 crores for RBRL Agro Commodities Ltd. and also gave personal guarantees to the bank for the benefit of the company. The ld. CIT(A) considered the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT (supra) and held that the loan advance by the company to share holder in compensation of share holder mortgaging his immovable properties for enabling company to secure bank loan cannot be treated as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) also referred to the order of ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers (supra) and submitted that the amounts was advanced during the ordinary course of business under business/commercial expediency then such advance cannot be treated as loan an advance and cannot be treated deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. In the present case the assessee being a LLP received unsecured loan from RBRL and the Assessing Officer invoked provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act and made addition of Rs. 4,58,10,307/-. 12. The ld. CIT(A) considered that factum of obtaining loan from bank by the RBRL under mortgage of immovable properties of Shri Jai Prakash Singhal and his family members and their personal guarantee and thereafter held that the loan advanced by the company to share holder in compensation of shareholder mortgaging his immovable property for enabling company to secure bank loan cannot be treated as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. The conclusion drawn by him also gets support from the CBDT Circular dated 12.06.2017 (supra) and judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders vs. CIT wherein it was held that what is to be seen as to whether the assessee advanced loan to its sister concern or a subsidiary as a major of commercial expediency which is clearly discernable in the present case. 13. In the present case the assessee was not a registered shareholder or beneficial shareholder in the lender company and despite specific reply by the assessee the Assessing Officer has wrongly considered the share holding of M/s Amrit Polyplast P. Ltd. in the shares of M/s RBRL Agro Commodities Ltd. as the beneficial share holding of 8

ITA No. 4158/Del/2018 Shri Jai Prakash Singhal on propionate basis and the addition made by the Assessing Officer cannot be held as validly sustainable only on this count. In the case of DCIT vs. Amit Intertrade P. Ltd. reported as (2022) 137 taxmann.com 488 (Ahd. Trib) as relied by the ld. AR, it was held that the deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) can only be assessed in hands of person who is a shareholder of lender company and not in hands of a person other than shareholder. In the present case undisputedly the assessee LLP is not a registered shareholder in the RBRL Agro Commodities Ltd. therefore provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be applied to the loan or advance taken by it from other company. In view of foregoing observations we are unable to see any ambiguity perversity or any valid reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the ld. CIT(A) and thus, we uphold the same. Accordingly grounds no. 4 to 7 of revenue are dismissed. Ground no. 8 of Revenue 14. Apropos this ground the ld. Senior DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in the facts by deleting the addition of Rs. 30,48,657 / made by the AO on account of brokerage and commission paid to various brokers by not considering the facts that ample opportunities were afforded to the assessee at the time of assessment proceedings to substantiate the claim and to prove the genuineness of the payments made on account of commission to the brokers. In addition to this, AO issued summons us 131 of the Act to the parties but none appeared and the figures appearing in the bills were not proportionate to the rates and the party name was not mentioned in the brokerage/ commission bills. The ld. Senior DR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee without any basis therefore first appellate order may kindly be set aside by restoring that of the Assessing Officer. 15. Replying to the above, the ld. AR drawing our attention towards para 8.6 to 8.10 of first appellate order submitted that the Assessing Officer made additions by observing certain baseless allegation against the assessee and the ld. CIT(A) deleted the same after correct and justified appreciation of facts and circumstances under which the assessee paid brokerage to the broker towards purchase of goods and packing material and on sales therefore the first appellate order may kindly be upheld. 16. On careful consideration of above submission, we note that the Assessing Officer made disallowance of brokerage/commission paid by the assessee amounting to Rs. 30,48,657/- by observing that summons under section 131 of the Act were not comply and thus, verification of commission agent could not be made. He also pointed out that party name was not mentioned in the brokerage bills, the concern was not existed on the given address, quantities in metric tones are always in round figures, assessee kept on paying commission to same party on a regular basis and commission was paid to 9

ITA No. 4158/Del/2018 two different parties for purchase made from the same party and figures appearing in the bills were not propionate to the rates and quantity. 17. During first appellate proceedings the assessee submitted detailed submissions and additional evidence under rule 46A of the I.T Rules 1962 and the ld. CIT(A) called remand report and also took rejoinder of assessee on record. The Assessing Officer in the remand report submitted that despite several opportunities the assessee could not prove the genuineness of transaction and reiterated the contentions of assessment order. The assessee reiterated its earlier submissions with support of additional evidence and details the ld. CIT(A) in para 8.8 noted that he has considered the detailed broker wise reply submitted by the assessee, the basis of disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and comments in the remand report. Thereafter, he noted that the assessee provided complete details of brokers, there addresses, PAN, TDS, Bills, confirmations and copies of ITR’s etc. whereas the Assessing Officer has disbelieved the impugned brokerage expenses on the basis of presumption and the successor Assessing Officer in the remand report also adversely commented without rejecting or raising any doubt over the additional documentary evidence and explanation of the assessee. In para 8.9 the ld. CIT(A) went into detail to evaluate the identity of commission recipient and genuineness of expenditure of all recipient entities and thereafter, drawn party wise conclusion and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of brokerage of commission paid to the various brokers. The conclusion drawn by the ld. CIT(A) is based on proper appreciation of facts and explanation of assessee which is quite correct and justified. We are unable to see any valid reason to interfere with the findings arrived by the ld. CIT(A) and hence we uphold the same. Accordingly ground no. 8 of revenue is dismissed. 18. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.06.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (M.BALAGANESH) (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:16th June, 2023. NV/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 10

ITA No. 4158/Del/2018 // By Order // Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi