, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , ! ' # , % #& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1364/CHNY/2018 ) *) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 M/S DIGITAL TRACK SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., NO.543, 1 ST FLOOR, ACCORD BUILDINGS, ANNA SALAI, NANDANAM, CHENNAI - 600 035. PAN : AADCD 1902 E V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE RANGE 1, CHENNAI - 600 034. (,-/ APPELLANT) (./,-/ RESPONDENT) ,- 0 1 / APPELLANT BY : MS. J. SREE VIDYA, ADVOCATE ./,- 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V.M. MAHIDAR, JCIT 2 0 3% / DATE OF HEARING : 05.08.2019 45* 0 3% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.08.2019 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -1, CHENNA I, DATED 26.02.2018 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. MS. J. SREE VIDYA, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE SALES 2 I.T.A. NO.1364/CHNY/18 COMMISSION TO THE EXTENT OF 47,59,463/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE FILED NECESSARY MATERIAL BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(APPEALS). THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED SOME ADDITIONAL MATERIAL BEFORE THIS TRI BUNAL. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PETITION TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT OF COMMI SSION TO 45 PERSONS AND ALSO TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF RECEI PT OF SERVICES FROM RESPECTIVE PERSONS. THEREFORE, THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT SINCE IT IS A NEW MATERIAL FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUN AL, THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER FOR RE- EXAMINATION. 3. WE HEARD SHRI V.M. MAHIDAR, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND T HAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE FOR THE RECE IPT OF SERVICES IN RESPECT OF THE SO CALLED PAYMENT OF COMMISSION. TH E SUMMONS SAID TO BE ISSUED TO VARIOUS PERSONS WERE RETURNED UNSERVED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE RECEIPT OF SERVICE FOR PAYMENT OF C OMMISSION. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. 3 I.T.A. NO.1364/CHNY/18 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE B EFORE THIS TRIBUNAL TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF AVAILING SERV ICE AND ALSO PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO VARIOUS PERSONS. SINCE TH IS IS A FACTUAL ASPECT AND NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED, THIS TRIBUNAL IS O F THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE REMITTED BACK T O THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-EXAMINATION. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER IN THE LIGHT OF THE MAT ERIAL THAT MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRES H IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 8 TH AUGUST, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' # ) ( . . . ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 8 TH AUGUST, 2019. 4 I.T.A. NO.1364/CHNY/18 KRI. 0 .389 :9*3 /COPY TO: 1. ,- /APPELLANT 2. ./,- /RESPONDENT 3. 2 ;3 () /CIT(A)-1, CHENNAI 4. PRINCIPAL CIT, CHENNAI-1, CHENNAI 5. 9< .3 /DR 6. =) > /GF.