SMT VANDANA SAMEER MAJALI,BELGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BELGAVI

(A.Y. 2012-13) Smt. Vandana Sameer Majali, vs ITO, Ward-2(1), H.No. 189/B1/A, Shukrawar Belagavi Peth, Tilakwadi, Belagavi. PAN: APUPM 1202 K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Omkar S. Godbole, FCA Revenue by : Shri N. Shrikanth, DR Date of hearing : 06/11/2023 Date of pronouncement : 08/11/2023 ORDER

Per PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM:

2. The relevant facts are that the assessee, an individual, in the business of providing share broking services and trading in shares, filed her return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 with a returned loss of Rs. (-) 18,64,887/-. The assessment was completed by assessing income at Rs.92,81,770/- u/sec. 143(3) by making disallowance of expenditure on consultancy and commission of Rs. 1,10,22,476/-.

Smt. Vandana Sameer Majali 3. We have perused the relevant materials/documents on record and have analysed the facts and circumstances in this case. We have given considerable thought to the submissions made by the parties herein.

3.1 We observe from the order of ld. CIT(A) specifically at paras 3.1 & 3.2 that sufficient opportunities were given to the assessee to make submissions in support of the claim that the expenses incurred were genuine and for the purpose of business of the assessee. The assessee was also asked to file details of computation of commission, however, the assessee was unable to furnish any details justifying the expenses and the computation of commission before the ld. CIT(A). That, further at para 4, the ld. CIT(A) observed that even during the assessment proceedings, the assessee did not produce the necessary details and verifiable proof of expenses despite opportunities being provided to the assessee. The assessee was also not able to submit details during the appellate proceedings and since the genuinity of all these expenses incurred was not established and also since it was not clear whether these were exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) finally dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In this case, it is correct that in spite of several opportunities given to the assessee, the relevant details were not filed either before the AO or before the ld. CIT(A). However, at the time of hearing, ld.AR for the assessee was willing to furnish the relevant details before the ld.CIT(A) to justify the case of the assessee on merits. The ld.DR 2

Smt. Vandana Sameer Majali vehemently opposed any further opportunity being given to the assessee. We are of the considered view that income tax legislation being welfare legislation, which is absolutely different and separate from penal legislation, the benefits and rights of the taxpayer/assessee should be protected within the ambit of law as far as possible. In the present case, if the assessee this time is unable to produce evidence and relevant documents, then the Department shall definitely make necessary additions, however, at this stage we are only providing one final opportunity to the assessee and in view thereof, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file to adjudicate as per law complying with principles of natural justice after considering the relevant evidences/documents that shall be filed before him by the assessee and the assessee is accordingly directed that this being final opportunity, all the necessary directions of filing relevant documents should be complied with before the first appellate authority. We order accordingly. Grounds of appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open Court on 08th November, 2023.