ASHWINDER PAL SINGH PURI,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3009/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 July 2019AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, 1963, to do substantial justice. The matter was then referred back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo examination of the commission payments.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed commission expenses paid to two individuals, Mr. Dinesh Pal Singh and Mr. Jaivir Singh, for lack of adequate evidence. The assessee appealed this decision.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of commission expenses was justified due to lack of evidence, and if additional evidence should be admitted to ensure substantial justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not explicitly mentioned

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES ‘G’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Hearing: 01.07.2019Pronounced: 01.07.2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ashwinder Pal Singh Puri, Vs JCIT, 3, 1st Floor, DDA Commercial Range-24, Complex, Sector D-4, Vasant New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AANPP0003H Assessee by : Sh. Sameer Kapoor, CA Revenue by : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 01.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 01.07.2019 ORDER Per B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

The assessee has raised following pertinent grounds of appeal:

”1. The lower authorities have erred in disallowing a sum of Rs.5,00,027/- on account Commission paid to Mr. Jaivir Sharma for procurement of order. Such conclusions are opposed to evidences on record.

2. The lower authorities have erred in disallowing a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- on account Commission paid to Mr. Dinesh Pal Singh. Such conclusions are opposed to evidences on record.

2. During the assessment the AO examined the genuineness of commission expenses paid to 1. Pyara Singh

2. Dildar Singh 2 Ashwinder Pal Singh Puri 3. Mohinder Prakash Singh 4. Dinesh Pal Singh 5. Ashwani Sharma 6. Jaivir Singh And accepted the commission paid to individuals at no. 1, 2, 3 & 5. The commission paid to Sh. Dinesh Pal Singh and Sh. Jaivir Singh has been rejected as they could not furnish adequate evidences.

3. Before us, during the hearing the assessee has filed application under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, 1963 submitting copies of communication exchanges by the assessee with various parties to substantiate that Mr. Dinesh Pal Singh was instrumental in negotiating the contracts. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. 239 CTR 263 wherein it was held that the additional evidences may be admitted if the additional evidence is necessary to do substantial justice. We find that the reason for disallowing the commission was non-filing of evidences before the AO and the evidences filed under Rules 29 would be required to do justice to the case. Hence, the same are being admitted.

4. Having admitted, we are of the opinion that since the Revenue has not got the opportunity of examining the additional evidences, in the interest of justice, the matter is being referred back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the details and pass an order in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is also directed not to take any unnecessary adjournments and comply promptly to the notices issued by the Revenue.

5.

Regarding the payments made to Sh. Jaivir Singh, it was argued that the submissions given by the assessee have not been properly 3 Ashwinder Pal Singh Puri examined by the Assessing Officer. Ld. DR argued that all the commission payment have to be examined comprehensively.

6.

Hence, Keeping in view that the facts mentioned above the matter is referred back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine de novo the commission payments made to Sh. D.P. Singh and Sh. Jaivir Singh.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. (Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 01/07/2019).

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →