Darode Jog & Associates, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle - 2(3), Pune

ITA 697/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Darode Jog & Associates appealing against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which confirmed the disallowance of Rs.15,00,000 on account of commission expenses for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee had claimed commission expenses paid to six persons, out of which the Assessing Officer (AO) allowed the commission for four but disallowed it for two HUFs, questioning their capacity to render sales promotion services. The Tribunal, after hearing the Departmental Representative and reviewing the materials on record, found that the assessee did not provide adequate details to substantiate the claim for the disallowed commissions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 132840 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.697/PUN/2022 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Darode Jog & Associates, 1212, Darode Jog House, Apte Road, Deccan Gymkhana, Pune – 411004 PAN : AAAFD8478R .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(3), Pune ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : N O N E Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 02-02-2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 03-02-2023 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 20-07-2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi for assessment year 2013-14. 2. We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. Thus, the assessee called absent 2 ITA No.697/PUN/2022, A.Y. 2013-14 and set ex-parte. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal by hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material available on record. 3. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is general in nature, hence, requires no adjudication. 4. Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in confirming the disallowance of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of commission expenses. 5. Heard ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The ld. DR, Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde drew our attention to para 3.1 of the assessment order and submitted that the assessee claimed commission expenses of Rs.20,85,338/- paid to six persons. He submits that the AO allowed commission paid to four persons, but however, disallowed in respect of two persons and drew our attention to the details of chart reproduced in assessment order. We note that the AO observed that the said two persons are HUF and working for the assessee in their respective capacities as professional architects. The AO asked the assessee to explain how the said two HUFs can render services to the assessee for sales promotion. We note that it was explained that the commission has been paid on the basis of invoices raised i.e. the said two HUFs. The ld. DR submits that the invoices raised by the HUFs were reproduced in the assessment order and vehemently argued that the said invoices do not contain the details of services rendered by the said two HUFs. He submits that the AO rightly disallowed the said amounts and added to the total income of the assessee. Further, he drew our attention to the impugned order and argued that the CIT(A) rightly confirmed the order of AO. We 3 ITA No.697/PUN/2022, A.Y. 2013-14 note that admittedly, no specific details regarding the services rendered by both the HUFs were not furnished before the AO as well as before the CIT(A) which is clearly evident from the assessment order and also from the impugned order. Before us, no such details were filed in support of the grounds raised by the assessee. On perusal of para 6.1 of the impugned order, we note that no details whatsoever furnished before the First Appellate Authority. In view of the same, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and it is justified. Thus, ground No. 2 raised by the assessee fails and is dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03 rd February, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिनाांक / Dated : 03 rd February, 2023. रदव आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A) concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT concerned. 5. दवभागीय प्रदतदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, “ए” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गार्ड फ़ाइल / Guard File. //सत्यादपत प्रदत// True Copy// आिेशानुसार / BY ORDER, वररष्ठ दनजी सदचव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune