IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH SMC , BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER ITA No. 549(Bang) 2016 (Assessment year : 2010 11) Alpha Enterprises, KCC & 1 Building, JC Nagar, Hubballi PAN : AAJFA1169M Appellant Vs JCIT, Range 1, Hubballi Respondent Assessee by : Shri H. N. Khincha, C. A. Revenue by : Shri P. Divahar, JCIT Date of hearing : 08-09-2016 Date of pronouncement : 16-09-2016 ORDER PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.: This appeal is filed by assessee. This is directed against order of learned CIT (A) - Hubali dated 30.12.2015 for A. Y. 2010 11. 2. assessee has raised as many as 5 grounds but only grievance of assessee is about granting deduction of only 50% of commission payment and adhoc disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- out of various expenses. 3. It was submitted by learned AR of assessee that A.O. disallowed total commission payment of Rs. 11,54,909/- to three persons by holding that these payments are not for business purposes and learned CIT (A) upheld such disallowance to extent of 50% by holding that expenses are excessive. He submitted that section 40A (2b) is not applicable to these parties and hence disallowance confirmed by CIT (A) to extent of 50% is not justified. Regarding disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- out of 2 ITA No. 1426(Bang) 2016 various expenses, he did not make any argument. Learned DR of revenue supported orders of authorities below. 4. I have considered facts of case and gone through orders of lower authorities. I find force in submissions of learned AR of assessee about first issue i.e. 50% disallowance out of commission expenses because this is not case of revenue that section 40A (2b() is applicable in respect of these payments. Having allowed deduction for 50% of expenses, learned CIT (A) has not indicated any valid basis for upholding balance disallowance. Hence, I delete balance disallowance out of commission expenses. Regarding second issue, I find that disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- was made by A.O. mainly on account of personal use of vehicles and telephones. This is not shown by assessee that partners were having personal vehicles and telephones for personal use. Hence personal use of vehicles and telephones cannot be ruled out. Hence, on this issue, I find no reason to interfere in order of CIT (A). 5. In result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in open court on date mentioned on caption page. (A.K. GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore: D t e d : 16.09.2016 am* 3 ITA No. 1426(Bang) 2016 Copy to : 1 Appellant 2 Respondent 3 CIT(A)-II Bangalore 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6 Guard file By order, AR, ITAT, Bangalore 1. Date of Dictation .. 2. Date on which typed draft is placed before dictating Member . 3. Date on which approved draft comes to Sr. P. S. .. 4 Date on which order is placed before dictating Member for pronouncement .. 5. Date on which order comes back to Sr. P.S. .. 6. Date of uploading order on website .. 7. If not uploaded, furnish reason for doing so . 8. Date on which file goes to Bench Clerk .. 9. Date on which order does for Xerox & endorsement . 10. Date on which file goes to Head Clerk . 11 date on which file goes to Assistant Registrar for signature on order . 12 date on which file goes to dispatch section for dispatch of Tribunal order 13 Date of dispatch of order Alpha Enterprises v. JCIT, Range–1, Hubballi