ARUN KUMAR AGNIHOTRI,KANPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(3(1), KANPUR

PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA:A.M.

(A) This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 04.12.2025 for the AY 2018-19. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeals are as under:

“01. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the disallowance of Rs.21,05,462/- being discount paid on sale of SIM cards to different persons, wrongly debited under the head commission is fully verifiable, the disallowance is contrary to facts, bad in law be deleted.

I.T.A. No. 30/Lkw/2026 Assessment Year:2018-19 2

same, and uphold the disallowance of Rs.21,05,462/- being bad in law, be deleted.

(B) In this case assessment order dated 05.03.2021 was passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). In the aforesaid assessment order an addition of Rs. 21,05,462/- was made by making disallowance of commission expenses, under section 37 of the Act. The assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid addition was dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 04.12.2025. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order of Ld.CIT(A).

(C) At the time of hearing the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee did not get reasonable opportunity to make proper submissions during the assessment proceedings. Further, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) unfairly and unjustly refused to admit the additional evidences during the appellate proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A). He submitted that the issue in dispute regarding the aforesaid addition of Rs. 21,05,462/- should be restored back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh order. The ld. Departmental Representative for Revenue expressed no objection to this. The matter was discussed at length, at the time of hearing,

I.T.A. No. 30/Lkw/2026 Assessment Year:2018-19 3

with the representatives of both sides, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee as well as the Ld. DR for the Revenue. After these deliberations, the representatives of both sides were in agreement that the materials on record are not sufficient to take a final view on the aforesaid dispute amounting to Rs. 21,05,462/-. They agreed that the factual matrix as available on record has visible gaps because of which a final decision on the allowability of the aforesaid commission expenses amounting to Rs. 21,05,462/- cannot be decided presently on the basis of materials on record, cannot be taken. They were in agreement that the issue in dispute requires factual verification and fresh consideration at the end of the Assessing Officer.

(D) In view of the foregoing discussion and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned appellate order is set-aside and the issues in dispute in the present appeal are restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass denovo order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

(E) All the grounds of appeal in present appeal are treated as disposed off in accordance with the aforesaid directions. For statistical purposes, the appeal is partly allowed.

(Order was pronounced in the open court on 23/04/2026)

Sd/- (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Accountant Member Date: 23/04/2026 SK, Sr.PS

I.T.A. No. 30/Lkw/2026 Assessment Year:2018-19 4

Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., 5. CIT(A) Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Lucknow