Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in share trading and consultancy, filed an income tax return for A.Y. 2011-12. The Assessing Officer, believing income had escaped assessment, issued notices under sections 148, 143(2), 142(1), and 133(6), subsequently disallowing commission expenses of Rs. 19,03,905/- and salaries of Rs. 5,53,069/-. The CIT(A) partly sustained these disallowances.
Held
The Tribunal, considering the facts and to meet the ends of justice, restored the disputed disallowance of salaries and commission payments back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to adjudicate the matter afresh on merits, providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing and cooperation in submitting information.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in partly sustaining the disallowance of salaries and commission payments due to insufficient documentary evidence, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
143(1), 143(2), 143(3), 142(1), 133(6), 147, 148, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH
Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI G D PADMAHSHALISmt Vandana Sameer Majali,
सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing 25.06.2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2025 ORDER
PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM:
The appeal is filed by the assesse against the order of the CIT (A) Belgaum passed u/sec 143(3) r.w.s147 and u/sec 250 of the Act. The assesse has raised the grounds of appeal
challenging the order of the CIT(A) partly sustaining disallowance of expenses made by the Assessing Officer.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assesse is engaged in the business of share trading and consultants.
Vandana sameer majali. The assesse has filed the return of income for A.Y.2011-12 on 20-09--2011 disclosing a total income of Rs.2,30,23,140/- and the return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) based on the information and after recording of reasons has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and has issued the notice u/sec148 of the Act on 27.03.2018 and in compliance the assesse has filed the return of income on 19.08.2018. Further notice u/sec 143(2) and u/sec 142(1) of the Act was issued to furnish the details and information of share broking company commission income and expenses claimed. In compliance, the Ld.AR of the assesse appeared from time to time and filed the details. The A.O has dealt at page 2 of the order on the commission and consultancy charges paid by the assesse and after examination of information, TDS return and reply received from parties in lieu of notice u/sec133(6) of the Act, the A.O found certain irregularities in the claim and disallowed the expenses to the extent of Rs.19,03,905/- and similarly the A.O has also made disallowance of salaries paid to the extent of Rs.5,53,069/- and finally assessed the total income of Rs.2,54,80,120/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3)r.w.s147 of the Act dated 28.12.2018.
Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts, submissions and Vandana sameer majali. findings of the AO but has confirmed the disallowance of commission expenditure and granted margin relief in disallowance of salaries and partly allowed the assesse appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assesse has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.
4. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in partly confirming the action of the Assessing Officer overlooking the facts and submissions of the assesse in the proceedings. The Ld.AR also submitted that the assessee has a good case on merits and shall substantiate with the material evidences and prayed for an opportunity to explain before the lower authorities and relied on the factual paper book. Per Contra, the Ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(A).
We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue that the CIT(A) has erred in partially sustaining the action of the A.O. in respect of disallowance of salaries paid and the commission payments as the transactions are not completely supported with the documentary evidences and explanations. The Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee has submitted the details as called for by the authorities. Further the evidences play a important role in decision making in the adjudicating proceedings. The Ld.AR also relied on the decision of the Honble Tribunal in the assessee own case for A.Y.2013-14 to 2015-16 were the similar disputed issues of commission expenditure was Vandana sameer majali. remitted to the file of Assessing Officer to decide on allow ability of the claim. Therefore we considering the facts, circumstances, evidences and to meet the ends of justice, for limited purpose restore the disputed issue to the extent of disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) along with the evidences to the file of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate afresh on merits and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information. And, we allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes.