Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1601/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2018-2019 Shri. Palanisamy Senthilkumar, The Income Tax Officer, 73/1, Selvakumar Rice Mill, Vs. Ward 2(1) Mangalam Road, Tirupur 641 601. Andipalayam, Tirupur 641 687. [Pan: Bwups 6975B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. J. Vamini, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. D. Hema Bhupal, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2024. घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1054384098 (1) Dated 15.07.2023. The Assessment Was Framed By The Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income 2 Tax/ Income-Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Vide Order Dated 03.04.2021. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regard To Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income (Appeals) (In Short ‘’Ld. Cit(A)’’) Sustaining/ Restricting The Addition At Rs.73,99,559/- As Against Addition Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer At Rs.2,42,58,153/- In Regard To Disallowance Of Expenditure Being Payment Of Commission & Brokerage Made To Contractors U/S.69C Of The Act Being Unexplained Expenditure.

section 44B of the Act’’. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 4 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the amount of Rs.1,45,83,780/- being expenditure chargeable to profit and loss account on account of shipping and commission charges, which