IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
 . 
   ITA 1258/2011  
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CIT             ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, sr. standing counsel 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 INTERWORLD CARGO CARE PVT LTD         ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
      16.12.2011 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 In this appeal filed by the Revenue, which pertains to assessment 
 year 2007-08 in the case of Interworld Cargo Care Pvt. Ltd., the 
 following questions of law have been raised : 
 . 
 a. Whether learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in deleting the 
 addition of Rs.37,16,441/- on account of commission paid without 
 appreciating that it is not a genuine payment? 
 . 
 b. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in 
 deleting the addition of Rs.1,80,000/- made on account of salary paid 
 without appreciating that it is not a genuine payment? 
 . 
 c. Whether the order of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is 
 perverse on both the accounts as it has not considered the relevant 
 material on record? 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 2. The additions, mentioned in question a and b above, made by the 
 Assessing Officer were deleted by the CIT(Appeals) and the said order has 
 been affirmed by the tribunal in their order dated 10th June, 2011. 
 . 
 3.  As far as payment of commission is concerned the tribunal has 
 recorded the factual matrix of the case.  It is noticed that the assessee 
 has been regularly paying commission for procurement of business of air 
 cargo bookings and this is usual and normal practice in the said trade. 
 It has been recorded that similar percentage of commission has been paid 
 in earlier years and no addition in the said years has been made.  The 
 finding of the Assessing Officer that the percentage of commission had 
 gone up, has been found to be factually incorrect.  It is further noticed 
 that commission or discount was paid to 177 persons but addition has been 
 made by the Assessing Officer in respect of 19 parties to whom 
 . 
 Rs.37,16,441/- was paid.  The assessee had deducted TDS while making said payments.  Name, addresses of the said 19 parties along with the PAN 
 numbers were furnished.  The Assessing Officer did not conduct any 
 further enquiry and did not issue summons or ask the respondent-assessee 
 to produce the said person for verification and investigation.  Once the 
 stand of the respondent-assessee that commission/discounts were normal 
 commercial practice in the trade in question is accepted and full details 
 are furnished about the identity of the recipients with proof of payment, 
 TDS certificates, etc., the Assessing Officer was not justified in making 
 additions without any material and basis to doubt the claim. 
 . 
 4. We do not find that the order passed by the tribunal on question 
 No.a is perverse. 
 . 
 5. With regard to the payment of Rs.1,80,000/- to Deepika Kapoor, the 
 tribunal has specifically recorded that she was an employee and had 
 remained on maternity leave for the months of August and September.  Form 
 No.16 along with the income tax return filed by her were produced.  Last 
 year also she was paid commission.  We do not think the order passed by 
 the tribunal on the said aspect can be categorized as perverse. 
 . 
 6. No substantial question of law arises.  The appeal is dismissed. 
 . 
 SANJIV KHANNA,J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 R.V.EASWAR, J 
 . 
 DECEMBER 16, 2011/vld 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 28 
 . 
 $ 
 .