MAGOXY INFRA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1439/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 July 2018AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal by relying on a previous year's order and without considering the evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the file of the AO for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against the confirmation of disallowance of commission expenses of Rs. 8,30,000/- by the AO for being unsubstantiated. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without considering the evidence submitted by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the evidence submitted by the assessee to substantiate commission expenses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None explicitly mentioned

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Saurabhkumar Rai, D.R
Hearing: 04.07.2018Pronounced: 17.07.2018

Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 24.01.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2013-14.

2.

The only issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is against the confirmation of disallowance of commission expenses of Rs.8,30,000/- as made by the AO qua unsubstantiated payment.

3.

At the outset, the Ld. A.R. submitted before the Bench that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue without considering

2 M/s. Magoxy Infra Pvt. Ltd. the evidences furnished by the assessee in support of its claim and merely relying on the fact that the assessee has not challenged the similar additions in the preceding year where the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the commission payments. The Ld. A.R. contended that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by passing a very cryptic order and requested the Bench to restore the issue to the file of the AO so that all these evidences which the assessee filed may be considered and matter is decided accordingly on merits of the case.

4.

The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A).

5.

After hearing both the parties and perusing the relevant material placed before us and also the perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has just relied on the preceding year order of the Ld. CIT(A) where the assessee has not challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) on similar issue. On the same analogy, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in the current year also without taking into account the evidences which were filed by the assessee in support of its claim. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the issue at hand needs to be decided denovo after appreciation and examination of the evidences which the assessee has filed before the first appellate authority. Accordingly, we restore the issue back to the file of the AO with the direction to decide the same after taking into account

6.

Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.07.2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →