Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ SMC BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN
आदेश /O R D E R
This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Chennai, dated 01.01.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2011-12.
Shri R. Padmanabhan, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the assessee claimed deduction of payment of 2 I.T.A.No.448/Mds/16 commission to the extent of `25,00,000/-. According to the Ld. representative, the assessee and his father are co-owners of property and the total commission paid was `50,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer allowed `5,00,000/- of the commission said to be paid and disallowed `45,00,000/-. In the case of the assessee’s father Shri Nitesh Kumar Shantilalji, the Assessing Officer allowed 50% of the commission paid and disallowed `22,50,000/-. However, the CIT(Appeals) in the case of the assessee, confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer to the extent of of `22,50,000/-. The Revenue filed appeal before this Tribunal in the assessee’s father case and this Tribunal, by an order dated 29.05.2015 in remitted back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. In view of the above, the Ld. representative submitted that this issue raised by the assessee may also be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer as it was done by this Tribunal in the case of the assessee’s father Shri Nitesh Kumar Shantilalji.
On the contrary, Shri M. Murugaboopathy, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee’s claim along with his father was `50,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer, in fact,
3 I.T.A.No.448/Mds/16 accepted the commission payment of `5,00,000/-. However, he disallowed the claim to the extent of `45,00,000/-. He also clarified that when the assessee’s father Shri Nitesh Kumar Shantilalji filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals), the CIT(Appeals) allowed the claim. In the present case, the CIT(Appeals) confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer to the extent of `45,00,000/-.
According to the Ld. D.R., when the Revenue took the matter before this Tribunal by way of appeal in the case of Shri Nitesh Kumar Shantilalji, this Tribunal, as rightly submitted by the Ld. representative, remitted the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.
I have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The assessee claims sales commission expenditure of `25,00,000/- out of total commission `50,00,000/- said to be paid by the assessee and his father. The Assessing Officer allowed `2,50,000/- and disallowed `22,50,000/-. As rightly submitted by the Ld. representative for the assessee and the Ld. D.R., in the case of assessee’s father in respect of sale of very same land, the commission said to be paid was remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer by an order dated 29.05.2015.
4 I.T.A.No.448/Mds/16 Since the issue is identical and the commission paid has nexus with that of assessee’s father, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has to re-examine the matter. Accordingly, the orders of the authorities below are set aside and the issue of disallowance of `22,50,000/- is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the issue afresh in the light of the material that may be filed by the assessee and thereafter decide the issue in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 18th August, 2016 at Chennai.