Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a commission agent, reported commission income of Rs.189 crores and incurred business promotion expenses of Rs.11,88,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) questioned these expenses, but the assessee failed to produce supporting invoices before the AO or the CIT(A) to substantiate the claim, stating payments were made by credit/debit cards.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not produced the required details or bills before the lower authorities. Giving credence to the AR's request for an opportunity to produce documents, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for a *de novo* assessment, ensuring the assessee is granted adequate opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee could substantiate business promotion expenses with adequate supporting documents and invoices to avoid disallowance by the tax authorities.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
(नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Shree Rukmini International, Vs ITO, Ward-44(2), Kolkata 12B, Madan Chatterjee Lane, Ram Mandir, Kolkata PAN No. : AAMFS 1247 F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Anil Kochar, AR नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Smt. Madhumita Das, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 09/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 09/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 06.12.2024 in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070982839(1) for the Assessment Year 2018-2019.
Shri Anil Kochar, ld.AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Smt. Madhumita Das, ld. Sr.DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
It was the submission by the ld. AR that that the assessee is a commission agent for M/s Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd. manufacturing of synthetic yarn. It was the submission that the assessee had received commission income of merely Rs.189 crores during the impugned assessment year and the assessee had incurred business promotion expenses of Rs.11,88,000/- during the impugned assessment year. It was the submission that the AO had questioned the same but the assessee was unable to produce the invoices supporting the bills etc. to substantiate its claim. It was the submission that before the ld. CIT(A) also the supporting documents could not be furnished. It was the submission that payments have been made by the credit cards and debit cards. It was the submission that the issues in this appeal may be restored to the file of the ld. AO so that the assessee would be in a position to provide all the details as required for.
In reply, ld. Sr. DR vehemently relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that no details have been produced before both the authorities below.
I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order in the present case clearly shows that the AO has asked for the details of the bills etc. The assessee has not produced the same before the AO or before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has now placed before me again only the ledger copy and the profit and loss account in respect of the impugned assessment year and the earlier assessment years. The bills have also not been placed before me. While questioning before about the bills, ld. AR submitted that he may be given one opportunity to produce the same before the AO. In these circumstances, giving credence to the statement of the ld. AR, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. AO for de novo assessment after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.