Smt vandana Sameer Majali, Belgavi V. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Belgavi

ITA 167/PAN/2019

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Vandana Sameer Majali, an individual engaged in share broking services, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hubballi. The original assessment for the Assessment Year 2012-13 resulted in a significant income assessment due to disallowed consultancy and commission expenses amounting to Rs. 1,10,22,476. The CIT(A) had dismissed her appeal due to the absence of sufficient evidence to substantiate the genuineness and business purpose of these expenses. The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the welfare nature of the income tax legislation, decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination, granting the assessee a final opportunity to present her case with necessary documentation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 136893 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: WT(D)
• Next Hearing Date: 05-11-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: OMKAR S. GODBOLE
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH :: PANAJI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, HON. VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, HON. JUDICIAL MEMBER (through virtual hearing) ITA No.167/PAN/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) Smt. Vandana Sameer Majali, H.No. 189/B1/A, Shukrawar Peth, Tilakwadi, Belagavi. PAN: APUPM 1202 K vs ITO, Ward-2(1), Belagavi 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: This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hubballi (for short, ‘CIT(A)’), dated 11.03.2019 for A.Y.2012-13 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 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/-. ITA No. 167/PAN/2019 Smt. Vandana Sameer Majali 2 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 ITA No. 167/PAN/2019 Smt. Vandana Sameer Majali 3 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. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court on 08 th November, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (R.S. SYAL) (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 08 th November, 2023 ITA No. 167/PAN/2019 Smt. Vandana Sameer Majali 4 vr/- Copy to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 5. The DR, ITAT, Panaji Bench, Panaji. 6. Guard File. By Order // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Pune.