Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a commission agent, appealed against a disallowance of Rs. 27,36,600/- made by the AO for incentives/rebates paid to farmers, which the CIT(A) partially allowed at Rs. 10 lacs on an estimate basis. The initial appeal to the ITAT was time-barred by 1723 days due to being mistakenly filed with the ITAT Delhi Benches, which dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction but condoned the delay for filing with the correct bench. The ITAT Chandigarh took note of this procedural history and proceeded to condone the delay.
Held
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. On merits, it found that the assessee maintained meticulous details of the recipients of the incentives/commission, and neither the AO nor the CIT(A) pointed out any specific defect or issued notices to the recipients. The tribunal deleted the entire disallowance, allowing the full actual expenses of Rs. 27,36,600/-.
Key Issues
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal due to jurisdictional error. 2. Allowability of commission/incentive expenses paid by a commission agent to farmers for facilitating sales.
Sections Cited
143(2), 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 30.01.2020 passed for assessment year 2016- 17.
2. The Registry has pointed out that appeal is time barred by 1723 days, however, perusal of the record would reveal that assessee has earlier filed the appeal before ITAT Delhi Benches A.Y.2016-17 2 well in time. The ITAT Delhi has opined that this appeal ought to be filed before Chandigarh Benches. The order of the ITAT read as under : “This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17 arises against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hisar's order dated 31.01.2020, in appeal no. 244/HSR/2018-19, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned Assessing Officer herein is the "Income Tax Officer. Ward-1, Sirsa” who had framed the impugned assessment in assessee's case vide order dated 22.12.2018 u/s 143(3) of the Act. It is in view of this clinching fact that 1 am of the considered view, in light of STANDING ORDER UNDER the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. 1963. applicable with effect from 1st October, 1997 that the Delhi benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal have no jurisdiction to entertain (he instant appeal. Even para 4 of the above STANDING ORDHR makes it clear that the decisive factor for the purpose of entertaining such an appeal is that of 'situs' of the Assessing Officer only. I, thus reject the assessee's instant appeal for want of territorial jurisdiction in very terms with liberty to be instituted afresh before the appropriate benches at Chandigarh. It is further clarified that the delay caused, if any, as on date, in institution of the assessee's appeal before the Chandigarh benches of the tribunal, shall be deemed to have been condoned. Ordered accordingly.
3. This assessee's appeal is dismissed in above terms.”
We further find that this appeal was decided by the CIT (Appeals) on 31.01.2020. Thereafter, Covid pandemic came in the month of March and the delay from March, 2020 upto May, 2022 was condoned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by exercising its inherent powers. Thereafter, assessee has invoked his remedy in a wrong Forum i.e. ITAT Delhi Benches. This appeal could have been transferred to ITAT A.Y.2016-17 3 Chandigarh Bench but the Delhi Bench has dismissed the appeal with an opportunity to approach the appropriate jurisdiction.
Considering all these facts, we are of the view that there is no deliberate delay at the end of the assessee in filing his appeal and accordingly, we condone the delay, if any and proceed to decide the appeal on merit.
The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are not in consonance to Rule 8 of ITAT Rules. They are descriptive and argumentative in nature. Though assessee has taken two grounds of appeal but under Ground No.1, he has taken 9 sub-grounds which are in the nature of arguments. The solitary grievance of the assessee is whether he is entitled for the expenses incurred in payment of commission.
With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. The assessee is a Commission Agent and trading in agricultural products. In other words, he facilitates the sale of agriculture products in the Grain Market. He has been receiving the commission @ 2.5% of the total sales taken place at his premises. Thus, he has A.Y.2016-17 4 filed return of income on 17.10.2016 electronically declaring total income at Rs.4,59,450/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and necessary notice u/s 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. A perusal of the account revealed that assessee has earned total commission of Rs.48,69,349/- but for earning this commission, he has given a rebate to the ultimate grower of the agriculture produce and paid a sum of Rs.27,36,600/-. In other words, whosoever came to his shop for availing his facility as a Commission Agent, the assessee gives them incentive in the range of 1 to 1.5% of the sale proceeds upon whom he has earned commission @ 2.50%. Thus, net commission retained by the assessee is between 1 to 1.50% instead of 2.50% charged from the farmers.
The AO did not allow this commission expenditure. Accordingly, he made a disallowance of Rs.27,36,600/-.
On appeal, ld. CIT (Appeals) accepted the necessity of making commission payments or incentives to the farmers, so that more business could be attracted by the assessee A.Y.2016-17 5 but on estimate basis allowed Rs.10 lacs only. We find that assessee has prepared a complete detail of all the recipients and filed a Paper Book running into 165 pages. He has maintained the details meticulously and we do not see logic in the finding of the CIT (Appeals) as to why allowance of expenditure is to be restricted at Rs.10 lacs only. He has not pointed out any specific defect in the details maintained by the assessee nor any notice was issued to any of the recipient of incentive from the assessee for facilitating him to sell his crop.
It is pertinent to observe that at the end, assessee has earned something we fail the logic of the AO for disbelieving the version of the assessee. Accordingly, we allow this appeal of the assessee and delete the disallowance made by the AO. In other words, actual expenses of Rs.27,36,600/- are allowed to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on 10.09.2025.