ORDER SHEET ITA No. 549 of 2004 IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE C. I. T. KOLKATA - IV Appellant Versus ALPHA HYDRONICS PVT. LTD. Respondent BEFORE: Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 10th November, 2014. For Appellant : Ms. Das Chandra, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. J. P. Khaaitan, Sr. Advocate Mr. S. Das, Advocate Mr. C. S. Das, Advocate Court : This appeal under section 260A of Income Tax Act has been preferred by appellant/revenue against order dated 29th September, 2003 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, E Bench, Kolkata in ITA 1203 (Cal) of 1999 in respect of Assessment Year 1994-1995 on following questions : (a) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Ld. Tribunal was right in holding that assessing Officer was not justified in disallowing claim for payment of commission 2 made to two parties on basis of misconception of law or misreading of facts? (b) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Order of Ld. Tribunal in allowing commission purported to have been paid by Assessee company was not supported by any materials on record and as such same is perverse in eye of law? We find that Tribunal while allowing appeal of assessee and held as under : We have considered rival submissions and gone through facts of case. We find that in present case there is binding contract between parties by which \recipients of commission had right to enforce realisation of commission stipulated between parties. We also find from communication between parties that payment was duly received by parties and paid by assessee by account payee cheques. revenue has not alleged that parties to transactions are related to each other or that payments are not genujine or that payments having been made by assessee to recipients have found their way back to assessee some way or other. Such being case, we find that authorities below were not justified in rejecting claim of assessee for payment of commission. Since all ingredients necessary for genuine business transaction exist in this case, we do not find any merit in addition made by AO and in action of CIT(A) in confirming same. In reversing their orders, and respectfully following decision of Hon ble Caalcutta High Court in case of Masther & plant (India) Ltd. (Supra) and case of Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (Third Member) discussed herein above, we allow appeal of assessee. 3 Heard Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for appellant revenue and Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learned senior advocate appearing for respondent assessee. Before us revenue could not demonstrate either money was not paid or money was paid and routed back to assessee. In circumstances interference with order of Tribunal is not warranted. No question arise for adjudication. application and appeal are dismissed. (SOUMITRA PAL, J.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) msen C. I. T. Kolkata-IV v. Alpha Hydronics Pvt. Ltd