Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee claimed large commission expenses with a low net profit. The department suspected these expenses to be excessive or bogus, requiring verification. Despite multiple notices and opportunities, the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of these commission payments.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the genuineness of the commission expenditure was an issue and the assessee failed to submit relevant documentary evidence before the authorities. Therefore, the matter deserved to be remanded to the Assessing Officer for effective adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence to justify the commission expenses claimed, and if not, whether the matter should be remanded for further verification.
Sections Cited
143(2), 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1019/JPR/2025
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2020-21 Udita Gupta Cuke The ITO, Vs. Plot No. 356, Devi Nagar, New Ward-1, Sanganer Road Sodala, jaipur. Kishangarh LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BHJPG3020P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. Rajeev Sogani, C.A. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 14 /10/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 15/10/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member, Appellant has challenged order dated 13.06.2025, passed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, whereby the appeal filed by her challenging assessment order dated 19.09.2022, relating to the assessment year 2020- 21, came to be dismissed. As a result, assessment order of disallowance of commission expenses, to the tune of Rs. 39,64,254/-, came to be sustained.
Arguments heard. File perused.
Udita Gupta vs. ITO FACTS IN BRIEF 3. As is available from the assessment order, department found that the assessee had claimed large amount of commission expenses and shown low net profit; that the commission expenses, as compared to the turnover were high; that there was possibility of the assessee having shown excess/bogus commission payments, with a view to increase the amount of expenditure and to reduce its profit/ taxable income. Accordingly, it was found to be a case where genuineness of commission expenses required verification. That is how, the case was selected under “complete category”. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, followed by other three notices u/s 142(1) came to be issued to the assessee. However, the assessee failed to furnish any reply.
Ultimately, the Assessing Officer proceeded ex-parte. Show cause notice dated 17.02.2022 was issued to the assessee. It was followed by another show cause notice accompanied by draft assessment order dated 17.03.2022. The assessee, in reply to the said show cause notice, put forth her claim on 30.03.2022 with some details. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued another show cause notice dated 06.09.2022, calling upon the assessee to explain/justify the Udita Gupta vs. ITO commission expenses, by producing documentary evidence, such as name(s), address (es) of the parties, PANs, confirmation from parties, Bank account statements, details of TDS etc. However, the assessee failed to submit any such detail.
That is how, an addition of Rs. 39,64,254/- was made while disallowing the commission expenses. Matter comes up by way of First Appeal 6. When the assessment order was challenged, Learned CIT(A), NFAC found that in the assessment proceedings, the assessee had submitted only a ledger account of expenses. In other words, no evidence except ledger account pertaining to expenses, was submitted in proof of genuineness of payments/expenditures. Learned CIT(A), NFAC observed that during appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted party-wise ledger for each sub head of the expenses, but she failed to produce any other details/evidences to prove genuineness of the said expenses. While so observing, Learned CIT(A), NFAC dismissed the appeal. Contentions 7. In the course of arguments when attention of the above said observation made by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, regarding non production of Udita Gupta vs. ITO details/evidences in the appellate proceedings has been drawn, Ld. AR for the appellant has referred to the Index of the paper book, whereby papers from page 70 to 123 are stated to have been filed, before Learned CIT(A). Those documents were copies of sample invoices of Amazon, Flipkart, Shopclues, Gxpress and Paytm. Learned AR for the appellant has reiterated that said invoices were submitted before Learned CIT(A), NFAC, but somehow in the impugned order, this fact does not find mention.
As noticed above, during assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted her response only to the show cause notice dated 17.03.2022, which was accompanied by draft assessment order. In para 2, page 2 of the assessment order, there is detail of the notices issued by the department to the assessee. These details reveal that out of 7 notices issued to the assessee, she responded to only one show cause notice dated 17.03.2022, and that too only in part, but failed to submit any response to the show cause notice dated 17.02.2022 and the subsequent show cause notice dated 06.09.2022. In this way, as observed by the Assessing Officer in para 4.1 of the said assessment order, the assessee failed to explain/justify commission Udita Gupta vs. ITO expenditure, due to the non production documentary evidence that was required from the assessee. When attention of ld. AR for the appellant has been drawn to these observations made by the Assessing Officer, and that in response to 6 other notices, the assessee did not put forth any response, Ld. AR for the appellant has requested for remand of the matter to the Assessing Officer for effective adjudication of the matter.
In the given situation, Ld. DR for the department has no objection to the prayer for remand of the matter to the Assessing Officer.