NAVYUG KRISHI SADHAN P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT 9(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6602/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9749 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMAN KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: B P PUROHIT
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B, MUMBAI BEFORE D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6602/M/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S. NAVYUG KRISHI SADHAN PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.1, ADARSH HOUSING SOCIETY, CROSS ROAD NO.2, MALAD, MUMBAI 400 064 PAN: AAACN2326D VS. DCIT 9(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI B.P. PUROHIT, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI SUMAN KUMAR, D.R DATE OF HEARING : 13.07.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.07.2017 O R D E R PER D.T. GARASIA , JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.09.2013 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2010-11. 2. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE HA S CLAIMED COMMISSION AND SALE PROMOTION EXPENSES OF RS.1,01,16,130/-. THE A SSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AO) HAS DISALLOWED THIS EXPENDITURE ON THE GROUND THAT THIS AMOUNT IS DEBITED ON 31.03.10 IN S ALES PROMOTION LEDGER BUT GENUINENESS OF CLAIM HAD NOT BEEN PROVED OR NOT EST ABLISHED THAT EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PU RPOSE. THE AO HELD THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS AND FAILED TO FURNISH ANY RELIABLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CLAIM. THE AO HAS VERIFIED THE TOTAL CLAIM AND DISALLOWED RS.1,01,16,130/-. ITA NO.6602/M/2013 M/S. NAVYUG KRISHI SADHAN PVT. LTD. 2 2. MATTER CARRIED TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT (A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. A.R. SUBMI TTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPLICATION FOR ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THIS COMMISSION PAYMENT. ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A PAPER BOOK BEARING BOOK NO.2 ON 18.11.2016 CONTAINING (PAGES 1 TO 300) CONFIRMAT IONS OF PARTIES TO WHOM THE QUANTITATIVE DISCOUNT AS SALES PROMOTION WAS PA ID. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE LEDGER ACCOUNT CONFIRMING THE RECIPIENTS AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BUT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ALLOW THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENC E. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT ALL ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCES ARE CAUSED TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER, THEREFORE, IT MAY BE ADMITTED. 5. THE LD. D.R. OBJECTED TO IT. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LOOKING INTO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND TH AT THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS ONLY CONFIRMATION LETTER. THEREFORE, WE ADMIT THE SAME AND RESTORE THIS MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE IT AFR ESH AFTER CONSIDERING THIS CONFIRMATION LETTER. THE LD. CIT(A) IS AT LIBERTY TO CALL FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO AND DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH AS PER LAW. LD . CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO GIVE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.07.2017. SD/- SD/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (D.T. GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 28.07.2017. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. ITA NO.6602/M/2013 M/S. NAVYUG KRISHI SADHAN PVT. LTD. 3 COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.