M/S. SETHIA OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 696/KOL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 February 2023AY 2015-20163 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to justify the genuineness of the commission expenditure. Therefore, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed commission expenditure of Rs. 5,11,200/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed this expenditure for 13 parties from whom no reply was received to notices issued under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of commission expenditure is justified when the assessee has provided substantial documentary evidence for its genuineness.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133(6),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, HON’BLE & DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCA
Hearing: 09/02/2023Pronounced: 20/02/2023

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The present appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (hereinafter the “ld. CIT(A)”) dt. 25/11/2022, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act’), for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The sole issue raised in the instant appeal relates to disallowance of commission expenditure of Rs.5,11,200/-. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued stating that the notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Act were duly served upon the respective persons receiving commission from the assessee company. Sufficient documentary details have been placed including PAN Nos., addresses, bills for raising commission and other related documents to justify the genuineness of the alleged commission expenditure of Rs.5,11,200/-. On the other hand, the ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities.

Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Sethia Oil Industries Limited

3.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of oil. Income of Rs.6,00,33,770/- declared in the return filed on 22/09/2015. In the course of assessment proceedings carried out after serving valid notice u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act, the ld. Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed commission expenditure and to verify the genuineness of the said expenditure, notice u/s 133(6) of the Act were sent to all the 77 parties out of which only in case of 13 parties, reply was not received. The ld. Assessing Officer without commenting upon the correctness of the details filed by the assessee, disallowed commission expenditure of Rs.5,11,200/- in those cases, where reply to notice u/s 133(6) of the Act was not received and the said disallowance was subsequently confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) also.

4.

We, however, considering the nature of business turnover achieved during the year, income declared by the assessee and complete details of the commission agents placed in the paper book from page 10 to 197 notice that sufficient evidence has been placed by the assessee on the basis of which we are satisfied with the genuineness of the alleged commission expenditures and the same being incurred in the course of business. We, therefore, set aside the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and delete the disallowance of commission expenditure of Rs.5,11,200/-. Accordingly Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3 of the assessee are allowed.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 20th February, 2023 at Kolkata. (RAJPAL YADAV) (DR. MANISH BORAD) VICE-PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated 20/02/2023 *SC SrPs Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Sethia Oil Industries Limited आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant

2.

""यथ" / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयु" अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कोलकाता/DR,ITAT, Kolkata, 6. गाड" फाईल /Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →