ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. M/S DEBASHU SERVICES PRIVATE LTD, NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 19/NAG/2020Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 January 2024AY 2016-177 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, noting that the CIT(A) had partly reversed the assessment findings. The Tribunal also acknowledged that previous coordinate bench orders had rejected the Revenue's stand on similar issues.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which deleted an addition of Rs. 2,44,13,979/- made on account of disallowance of commission payments. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the entire commission, categorizing agents based on their statements and work done.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of disallowance of commission payments, and if the Assessing Officer's categorization of agents was valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37,Section 148,Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Hearing: 24.01.2024Pronounced: 25.01.2024

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :

This assessee’s appeal, for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the CIT(A)-1, Nagpur's order no.CIT(A)- 1/280/2018-19 CIT(A)-1/215/2018-19, dated 13.11.2019, involving proceedings u/s.148 r.w.s. 147 and 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.

2.

The Revenue pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

2 ITA.No.19/NAG./2020

1.

“On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals), Nagpur erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,44,13,979/- on account of disallowance u/s 37 of the I. T. Act, 1961.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case; The Ld. CIT(Appeals), Nagpur erred in following the decision of the hon’ble ITAT in which the tribunal has erred in directing that 5% of the commission paid and claimed in Profit and Loss Account should be disallowed uniformly in all the AYs under consideration without any basis for the same. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(Appeals), Nagpur erred in following the decision of the hon’ble ITAT in which the tribunal has erred in directing that 5% of the commission paid and claimed in under consideration without appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer has made enquiries after issuing summons to the so called agents and recorded their statements and on the basis of the same has duly categorized them in three categories, i.e., ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’. The commission agents under category ‘A’ were completely denied to have done any work for the assessee, the category 13’ agents though have accepted to have done work for the assessee but from their statements it is evident that these agents did not have the requisite competence or expertise in the work they claimed to have 3 ITA.No.19/NAG./2020 done for the assessee and this makes the documents like confirmation, service agreement etc. completely irrelevant. Further the category SC’ agents have never attended the summons issued to them. This situation remains unchanged in all the Assessment years under consideration and also in subsequent assessment years for which the assessment is made on a later date. This clearly indicates the modus operandi of the assessee to claim bogus commission agents. 4. Any other grounds which may taken with the permission of the hon’ble ITAT.”

3.

Both the learned representatives next took up to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion partly reversing the assessment findings disallowing the assessee’s entire commission payments of Rs.2,44,13,979/- as follows :

4 ITA.No.19/NAG./2020 5 ITA.No.19/NAG./2020 6 ITA.No.19/NAG./2020

4.

The Revenue vehemently argued during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in partly deleting the impugned commission payment disallowance despite the fact that the Assessing Officer had made his strenuous efforts to prove that the assessee’s claim in issue was lacking genuineness in light of the recipient’s cross-examination and other relevant material on record. He could hardly dispute that even the Revenue’s pleadings before us are more than fair in making it clear that this is a recurring issue involving almost identical nature of not only the recipients concerned but also the corresponding services rendered. Learned counsel has invited our attention to his detailed written submissions running into 88 pages containing the earlier learned coordinate bench(es) orders rejecting Revenue’s stand all along. Faced with the situation, we hardly see any merit in the Revenue’s instant sole substantive grievance. Rejected accordingly.

5.

This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.

7 ITA.No.19/NAG./2020 Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.01.2024.

Sd/- Sd/- (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 25th January, 2024 VBP/- Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1. 1. The Appellant.

2. The Respondent.

3. The CIT(A)-1, 216, Aayakar Bhavan, Telangkhedi Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440 001.

More judgments on Section 37

All 4,334 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →