SPANGLE STEEL PRODUCTS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 36(1), NEW DELHI

The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the Order dated 09.11.2017 of the Ld. CIT(A)-12, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2014-15 on the following grounds:-

1. That the order passed by the Ld. A.O. and confirmed by the Learned CIT (A), New Delhi is not only bad in law but also against the facts of the case particularly keeping in view that the learned AO made additions primarily due to HUF status of the commission recipients which cause has not been supported by the learned CIT (A) in his order.

2. That the learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition made by the A.O. on account of commission and consultancy charges amounting to Rs. 1750330/- and Rs. 220600/- respectively in view of:- a. The fact that the appellant had duly filed various details and documents confirming the services rendered by the commission agents to the appellant. b. That the case laws quoted by the Ld. CIT (A) are not applicable to the facts of the case under appeal. c. Delhi High court verdict in CIT v/s Printer House Pvt. Ltd. (188 taxmen 70 (Del)) particularly keeping in view that no negative evidence has found by the learned AO on investigation done by him under section 133(4) of Income Tax Act, 1961. d. Delhi High Court verdict in CIT v/s Siddartha Trade Links Pvt. Ltd. (ITA 1249/2011) particularly keeping in view the voluminous evidence submitted and commercial expediency explained by the assessee. e. ITAT Delhi verdict in Vinitec Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v/s Deptt of Income Tax (ITA 2835/Del/2011) keeping in view that there was no negative material on record with the Assessing Officer to make disallowance of the commission paid by the assessee.

3. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not admitting the ledger accounts of the commission agents and the related commission agreements submitted by the assessee as additional evidences under Rule 46A, which are very essential in considering the issues in dispute and therefore, requested that the same may be admitted and issues in dispute may be set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the authorities below, but have not raised any serious objection on the admission of evidences and the application u/R 46A filed before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. I have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the Application dated 7.11.2017 filed under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules filed before me enclosing therewith the copy of commission agreements executed between the assessee and the commission agents, vide Annexure 1, 2 & 3 and the copy of the ledger accounts of the commission agents to whom the impugned commission was paid, vide Annexure 4, 5, 6, & 7, which were additional / fresh evidence, as the same could not be produced before the AO as sufficient opportunity was not given to the assessee for submission of the said evidences before making the additions. I find considerable cogency in the submissions of the Ld. counsel for the assessee that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the additional / fresh evidence, as aforesaid, due to reason mentioned as above. I further note that now the assessee has furnished the copies of those documents which were furnished by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings in the shape of application u/r 46A, which are very much relevant and essential in adjudicating the issues in dispute. Hence, in the interest of justice, I admit the same and set aside the issues in dispute to the file of the AO with the directions to decide the same, afresh, as per law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.