NAJMUL ISLAM QA, RUL ISLAM SAYED,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(2), MUMBAI

The first issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A), confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) of difference in commission as per TDS Certificate and as recorded in the books account noted as per the P&L A/c. The assessee has also raised the issue of disallowance of telephone expenses and sundry expenses by restricting the same at 25% and 50% respectively. For this, assessee has raised the following Ground(s): “During the assessment, the learned assessing officer erred in disallowing ₹5,14,711/- on account of difference in commission income received during the year, disallowance of ₹32,161/- on account of telephone expenses and disallowances of ₹5,01,139/- on account of salary expenses paid. The learned assessing officer provided with the requisite details along with supporting but the same has not been accepted. The case was decided on the basis of assumption without considering the facts”.

We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of assessee as the assessee has moved rectification application u/s.154 of the Act before the AO in regard to disallowance of these expenses. The CIT(A) noted that these disallowances do not relate to rectification of mistake as there is no mistake apparent from record rather the AO has taken a conscious decision after application of mind. The CIT(A) further noted that these are subject matter of regular appeal before the CIT(A) and not for rectification of mistake, hence CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee. We noted that the CIT(A) has rightly observed that the above addition is the subject matter of appeal and not rectification u/s.154 of the Act. Hence, we dismiss the appeal of assessee. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th July, 2019