Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SMT. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL
ORDER Per Kavitha Rajagopal (JM): This appeal has been filed by the assessee as against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20/09/2021 for the assessment year 2018-19.
The Solitary ground of appeal raised by the assessee is as under:- “The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT (Appeals)] erred in upholding the disallowance made by the earned Assessing Officer, for a sum of Rs.32,92,794/- in respect of Commission paid by the appellant. The learned CIT (Appeals) and the learned Assessing Officer erred in concluding that the appellant failed to furnish details and cogent evidence to prove the genuineness of the claim for commission paid. The learned CIT(A) and the learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the explanations furnished by the appellant and the practical difficulties arising as a result of the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and consequent lockdown and other restrictions.”
3. The brief facts are that the assessee is an international Air Travel Association IATA agent for domestic and international routes. The business activity of the assessee includes walking-in customers in the Centralised location of Crawford Market, Mumbai as well as through network of sub- agents, who book tickets through the assessee for their customers. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 declaring total income of Rs.29,43,180/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny assessment and the assessment order was passed under section 143(3) dated 30/03/2021 where the Assessing Officer disallowed payment of Rs.32,92,794/- as commission to certain parties on which TDS was deducted under section 194H of the Income-tax Act on the ground that these were bogus payments. Aggrieved by this, the assessee was in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the said addition on the ground that the assessee has not furnished requisite details to prove the genuineness of commission expenses to the tune of Rs.32,92,794/-. The assessee is in appeal before us.
The Ld.AR stated that the assessee intends to file details in support of the claim of the assessee which was not elaborated before the Ld.CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings before him. Therefore, the Ld.AR requested for another opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) and requested that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A). We are of the considered opinion that in the interest of natural justice the assessee may be given another opportunity of being heard to furnish the details required to substantiate its claim. 5. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open Court on ___ July, 2022.