NEELAM PRADEEP GOEL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Learned taxing authorities below had erred in disallowing claim of Rs.493000/- towards commission paid. Considering the facts of the case and provisions of law, the commission may be allowed in full. Just and proper relief may be granted to the appellant as per the provisions of law. 2. The Learned taxing authorities below had erred in disallowing Rs.63400/- out of salary paid on estimated basis. Considering the facts of the case and provisions of law, the salary may be allowed in full. Just and proper relief may be granted to the appellant as per the provisions of law.

Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee for the year under consideration had declared total income of ₹ 7,45,010/-. The assessee was engaged in the business of trading of polyfilms and allied items required for industrial purpose. For the year under consideration, the assessee had claimed expenses under the head ‘Commission’ at ₹ 9,10,516/-. Out of this, commission of ₹ 3,22,004/- was paid to her son, to her husband of ₹ 3,22,004/-, ₹ 86,000/- to Mrs. Pallavi and ₹ 85,000/- to Ravina Prabal Agrawal. The assessee was asked as to what type of services were rendered by them. The assessee explained that husband was looking after sale/purchase/ financial matters and her son Mr. Apporv Goel, who was BE in Computer Science was helping in management, production, dispatch, etc. Both Pallavi Agrawal and Ravina Agrawal were Mumbai based persons and provided consultancy services. However, the assessee could not explain the type of consultancy services given by them. The Assessing Officer also noted that husband Mr. Pradeep Goel was employee of Yashoda Polyfilms Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Apporv had just passed out as engineer graduate and also received salary from Yashoda Polyfilms Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer doubted the commission paid to him in the absence of any documentary evidence filed in support of expenses claimed. The commission paid to Pallavi Agrawal and Ravinda Agrawal were also not allowed by the Assessing Officer. However,

The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the assessee has sufficient evidences available with her justifying the payment of commission to the respective parties which are being filed as additional evidence. Attention was drawn to the additional evidence filed at pages 1 to 81 of the Paper Book and it was pointed out that the same may be admitted for adjudication.

The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue strongly objected to the same.

On perusal of record and after hearing both the learned Authorized Representatives and in the interest of justice, there is merit in the plea of assessee that the evidences which are available with the assessee justifying the payment of commission to different parties, be admitted and the same may be verified at the level of Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to justify her claim of expenses by way of necessary evidences in this regard and in case the same is so established, the Assessing Officer shall decide the issue of allowability of expenditure after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and after admitting additional evidence and in accordance with law.

Similarly, in respect of second addition i.e. disallowance of salary expenses on estimate basis, the Assessing Officer is directed to verify the plea

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