GAURAV BAHL,GURGOAN vs. ACIT, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8449/DEL/2019Status: HeardITAT Delhi19 July 2022AY 2011-124 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 noted that payments to two parties were made by cheque with TDS deducted. For the remaining smaller amounts, considering the quantum, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance.

What were the facts?

The assessee debited commission expenses in its Profit & Loss Account. The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of these expenses for not being genuine due to lack of confirmation. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of commission expenses was justified when payments were made by cheque with TDS deducted, and for smaller amounts, whether a lenient view could be taken.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US

For Respondent: Md. Gayasuddin Ansari
Hearing: 18.07.2022Pronounced: 19.07.2022

This appeal is filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–1, Gurgaon, dated 10.07.2019.

2.

The assessee has raised the following substantive ground of appeal:-

“ That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT (A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.7,84,073/- on account of disallowance of commission. “

3.

Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee filed return of income on 16/11/2011 declaring in the total income of Rs. 87,71,570/- for Assessment Year 2011-12. The Ld. A.O found that, the assessee debited an amount of Rs. 58.84 lacs towards commission in its P & L Account and to verify the same, asked the assessee to file the names and address of the parties to whom the commission was given and the reason for such payments. The assessee filed list of names and address of such parties. Finally, the assessment order came to be passed treating the amount of Rs. 7,84,073/- has not genuine in the absence of any confirmation being available on record out of total amount of Rs. 58.84 lacs.

4.

The assessee has preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Since, the assessee has not produced any documents, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the Appeal ex-parte. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal in (ASR)/2017, the Tribunal has vide order dated 27/07/2017 remanded the matter to the file of CIT(A) to decide the matter on merits after giving opportunities to the assessee. During the course of second round of appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) the assessee filed a request for admission of additional evidence vide letter dated 30/01/2019 by proposing to produced the confirmation of Mr. Vijay Maira and Sh. Anjali Kumar, but the Ld.CIT(A) without satisfying with the documents provided by the assessee, even in respect of two persons, i.e. Mr. Vijay Maira and Sh. Anjali Kumar dismissed the assessee appeal by confirming the disallowance made by the A.O.

6.

We have heard the parties, perused the material on record and gave our thoughtful consideration. The total disallowance made by the A.O is Rs. 7,84,073/- out of which the commission expenses paid to Mr. Vijay Maira and Sh. Anjali Kumar which totally constitutes a sum of Rs. 63,90,32/-. The details of the same are hereunder:-

S. Name PAN Commission Ch. No/Date TDS No. Paid deducted & deposited 1 Anjali Kumar AQAPA6477H 429900 000442/04.03.2011 42990 2 Vijay Maira AALPM7812R 209132 000377/10/07.2017 20913

7.

The assessee has provided the confirmation of the above two persons, it is see that the payments have been made by cheques and the TDS has also been deducted while making those payments. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) while dealing with additional evidence produced by the assessee, should have excluded the above two payments.

8.

The remaining three commission expenses claimed by the assessee are made in thousands which is as under:-

I. Sh. Sunil Jain Rs. 85,500/- ii. Sh. Shyam Basu Rs.27,600/- v. Smt. Rashmi Gupta Rs. 31,941/- Total Rs. 145,041 Looking into the quantum of the amount, this being the second round of litigation before the Tribunal, by taking lenient view on the above three commission entries, we delete the disallowance made by the A.O.

9.

Accordingly, the Grounds of Appeal of the assessee are allowed and the disallowance made by the A.O which was confirmed by the CIT(A) is hereby deleted.

10.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →