VIJAY NARAYAN GAIKWAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 10,, PUNE

We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor filed any application seeking any adjournment. The assessee was absent, therefore, we proceed to hear the learned Departmental Representative after perusing the material available on record.

The only issue is to be decided is as to whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition made on account of payment of commission in the absence of assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Vijay N. Gaikwad A.Y. 2012-13 4. Heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record.

We note that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of agricultural and trading. The assessee has filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 1,35,74,303/-. In scrutiny assessment, the A.O determined the same at Rs. 1,56,61,536/-, inter alia, making an addition on account of payment of commission. On perusal of assessment order, the assessee has shown expenditure on account of commission paid to various agents to the extent of Rs. 19,90,000/-. The A.O asked the assessee to justify the said expenditure with support of documentary evidence. We note that the assessee could not produce any concrete evidence against the said payment vide para 3.4 as noted by the A.O in his order. In the absence of relevant evidence, the A.O added the said amount to the total income of the assessee and being aggrieved with the addition made by the A.O, the assessee challenged the same before the CIT(A). However, we note that inspite of having issued notices intimating the date of hearing to the assessee, there was no representation on behalf of the assessee or by any person in the first appellate proceedings. We note that the CIT(A) held that the assessee was not interested to prosecute its case and by upholding the same, confirmed the addition made by the A.O ex parte of assessee. On perusal of statement of facts filed along with form No. 35, we note that the assessee pleaded before the CIT(A) that all the payments on account of commission were made through account payee cheques and also Vijay N. Gaikwad A.Y. 2012-13 pleaded that the assessee is ready to produce such evidence whenever opportunity comes for the same. Therefore, it is clear that the assessee is ready to produce evidence in support of the contention regarding payment of commission and there was no opportunity for him in the first appellate proceedings. Admittedly, the CIT(A) did not dispose of the appeal on merits, but however, he disposed of the case as discussed above, ex parte of assessee. Under sub-section (6) of section 250, the CIT(A) is expected to decide the appeal with reasons determining the points thereon. As we noted above, the appeal was disposed of by the CIT(A) ex parte of assessee. We therefore, deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the CIT(A) and the assessee is at liberty to file evidence, if any, in support of his claim. Thus, the only ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.