MPRS SHIPPING AND LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12(3)(2), MUMBAI, PRESENT DCIT CIRCLE 4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/assessee against the order dated 20.11.2023 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT(A)-5, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for the A.Y. 2015-16, wherein the order of the Page | 1

MPRS Shipping and Logistics Private Limited; A.Y. 2015-16 Assessing Officer, Circle 12(3)(2), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the “AO”) dated 28.12.2017 was confirmed.

“I have gone through assessment order passed by assessing officer (AO) and detail submission made by appellant. The fact of the case, appellant had paid commission to 4 parties during the year under consideration, that is AY 2015-16. Further, appellant had also paid commission to same 4 parties in AY 2014-15 also. AO had enquired about genuineness of transaction, details of services rendered by appellant same parties etc. AO had found that, these four parties are accommodation entry providers, appellant had received no genuine services from them. Further, they have not responded to third party enquiry by AO. Therefore, AO had found that these commission expenses are not genuine, and disallowed the same in AY 2014-15. As appellant had again paid commission to same four parties for AY 2015-16, Page | 2 MPRS Shipping and Logistics Private Limited; A.Y. 2015-16 AO had applied findings of AY 2014-15 in AY 2015-16 and held that commission payment to these four parties as not genuine. The enquiry result arrived for AY 2014-15 also applied by AO for AY 2015-16 as both the assessment years involved similar issues. This is logical, there is no legal infirmities in applying evidences and conclusions drawn in respect of similar issues of same appellants for different assessment years. The appellant had clearly not been able to establish any rendering of services by these parties for the payment of Rs.8,84,111/-. The onus was on the appellant to prove that services were actually rendered by them. And the appellant had failed to discharge its onus. In the light of above facts, there is no infirmity in AO’s action. In the result, appeal of the appellant is dismissed.”

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in not allowing the claim of deduction of sales commission paid to four parties by the assessee of Rs.8,84,111/-.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in considering the similar disallowance made by the ld. AO in previous assessment year 2014-15, including the notices u/s section 133(6) sent in scrutiny proceedings in AY 2014-15, without an independent inquiry made by the ld. AO for AY 2015-16, whereas, the assessment year 2015-16 is independent assessment year from assessment year 2014-15 The ld. CIT(A)-NFAC made the same contention of the ld. AO that since commission to these four parties were disallowed during the assessment proceedings in the preceding year i.e. A.Y. 2014‐15, then the same need to be disallowed in this year as well. 0 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) did not consider the fact that the assessee has deducted and paid the TDS on such commission amount. Page | 3 MPRS Shipping and Logistics Private Limited; A.Y. 2015-16 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that during the scrutiny proceedings the assessee provided the following relevant documents to the ld. AO. Also, the parties to whom the commission paid has disclosed the commission income in their individual ITR Copy of ITR of commission party Ledger balance confirmation Debit Memo of the commission party.

5. The assessee craves Your Honour leave to add or alter or amend or delete any of the above grounds.”

MPRS Shipping and Logistics Private Limited; A.Y. 2015-16 6. The Ld. DR on behalf of the revenue has submitted that the appellant should not be awarded for his own negligence as the assessee has failed to file the necessary documents/evidence in support of his case before the Ld. AO. However, the Ld. DR fairly submitted that the Tribunal may consider the request of the appellant in case the necessary undertaking be filed for submitting evidence/documents before the concerned authorities.

“The assessee hereby provides undertaking to the Hon'ble Bench "8 that the assessee shall fully co-operate to the Id. Assessing Officer during the set aside assessment proceedings and provide the necessary documentary evidences related to sales order procurement in support of its claim of deduction of sales commission of Rs.8,84,111/-in assessment year 2015-16.

MPRS Shipping and Logistics Private Limited; A.Y. 2015-16 the opportunity needs to be given to the assessee to present his case completely before the Ld. AO. The impugned order is accordingly set aside.

Order pronounced in the open court on 06.08.2024