ARCADIA TRAVELS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT NEAC, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2101/MUM/2021Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 July 2022AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity to present the required details to substantiate its claim. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an IATA agent, claimed commission expenses of Rs. 32,92,794/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim, deeming the payments bogus, and the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance due to lack of evidence. The assessee argued that practical difficulties due to COVID-19 prevented them from furnishing complete details.

What were the issues?

Whether the commission payments were genuine and adequately substantiated. Whether the assessee was given sufficient opportunity to present evidence, especially considering pandemic-related challenges.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194H,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SMT. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

For Appellant: Shri M.A. Goel
For Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha (SR AR)
Hearing: 04/07/2022Pronounced: 04/07/2022

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.

2.

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.

4.

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.

More judgments on Section 194H

All 1,314 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194H →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →