DIGITAL TRACK SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT (OSD) CORPORATE RANGE 1, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1364/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 August 2019AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the additional evidence pertains to a factual aspect requiring verification, the matter should be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed sales commission of ₹47,59,463/- for lack of evidence regarding services received. The CIT(Appeals) confirmed this disallowance. The assessee then filed additional evidence before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of sales commission is justified without proper verification of services received, especially when additional evidence is produced before the appellate tribunal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Respondent: Shri V.M. Mahidar, JCIT
Hearing: 05.08.2019Pronounced: 08.08.2019

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -1, Chennai, dated 26.02.2018 and pertains to assessment year 2014-15.

2.

Ms. J. Sree Vidya, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer disallowed the sales commission to the extent of ₹47,59,463/-. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee filed necessary material before the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(Appeals). The assessee has also filed some additional material before this Tribunal. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee has filed petition to admit the additional evidence with regard to payment of commission to 45 persons and also to substantiate the claim of receipt of services from respective persons. Therefore, the Ld.counsel submitted that since it is a new material filed before this Tribunal, the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for re- examination.

3.

We heard Shri V.M. Mahidar, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee failed to submit any evidence for the receipt of services in respect of the so called payment of commission. The summons said to be issued to various persons were returned unserved.

Therefore, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has not established the receipt of service for payment of commission. The CIT(Appeals) has confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.

4.

Now the assessee has filed additional evidence before this Tribunal to substantiate the claim of availing service and also payment of commission to various persons. Since this is a factual aspect and needs to be verified, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-examination. Accordingly, orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the entire issue is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the matter in the light of the material that may be filed by the assessee including the additional evidence filed before this Tribunal and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →