JAY MAHARASHTRA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI V. ITO 19(1)(5), MUM

ITA 3856/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Jay Maharashtra Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirming the addition of Rs. 56,09,642 as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Income-tax Act. The assessee argued that the commission paid to various agents for mobilizing deposits was genuine and allowable as business expenditure. The Assessing Officer had initially disallowed the expenditure due to lack of supporting evidence, which was later contested in the appeal. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and set aside the lower authorities' decisions, restoring the matter for re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775917 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Mavilayi Service Coop. Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITHA KAUSHIK
• Assessee Lawyers: DINESH AHIR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Additional evidence; Business expenditure; Corroborative evidences; Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained expenditure; TDS
• Section: 68; 69C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 3856/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jay Maharashtra Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., Room No. 1, Ground Floor, Shiv Bhavan, Bldg. No. 25, 4th Kamathipura, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400 008. Vs. ITO 19(1)(5), Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai-400012. PAN NO. AAFAJ 3385 B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Dinesh Ahir Revenue by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09/09/2025 Date of pronouncement : 09/09/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2020-21, raising following grounds: Ground l. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not deleting the Printed from counselvise.com addition of Rs. 56,09,642/ Agents as Unexplained expenditure u/s 69C. Ground Ground2. That the Ld CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that the commission was paid to various Agents who mobilse to the appellant and being genuine was allowable as business expenditure Ground3. That without prejudice, the Ld CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition as Unexplained Expenditure u/s 69C though the facts before him proved that the expend genuine and were made to persons whose full details were available on record and that there was no case of expenditure being unexplained and the source 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, a Co operative Society, is engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members. The assessee filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year on 04.02.2021, declaring a total loss of (-) ₹37,482/-. The said return was selected for scrutiny an accordingly, statutory notices under the Income (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) were issued and duly complied with. 2.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer(AO) noticed that the assessee had claimed com expenditure of ₹56,09,642/ agents for collection of daily deposits from its members. The Assessing Officer required the assessee to furnish the details of such members/non- commission expenditure with supporting evidence. Despite repeated opportunities, the assessee failed to furnish any cogent explanation Jay Maharashtra Co addition of Rs. 56,09,642/- on account of Commission paid to Agents as Unexplained expenditure u/s 69C. Ground Ground2. That the Ld CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that the commission was paid to various Agents who mobilse to the appellant and being genuine was allowable as business Ground3. That without prejudice, the Ld CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition as Unexplained Expenditure u/s 69C though the facts before him proved that the expend genuine and were made to persons whose full details were available on record and that there was no case of expenditure being unexplained and the source not proved. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, a Co Society, is engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members. The assessee filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year on 04.02.2021, declaring a total loss . The said return was selected for scrutiny an accordingly, statutory notices under the Income (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) were issued and duly complied During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing noticed that the assessee had claimed com 56,09,642/- stated to have been paid to certain agents for collection of daily deposits from its members. The Assessing Officer required the assessee to furnish the details of -members and to justify the allowability commission expenditure with supporting evidence. Despite repeated opportunities, the assessee failed to furnish any cogent explanation Jay Maharashtra Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. 2 ITA No. 3856/MUM/2025 on account of Commission paid to Ground2. That the Ld CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that the commission was paid to various Agents who mobilsed business to the appellant and being genuine was allowable as business Ground3. That without prejudice, the Ld CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition as Unexplained Expenditure u/s 69C though the facts before him proved that the expenditure was genuine and were made to persons whose full details were available on record and that there was no case of expenditure being Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, a Co- Society, is engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members. The assessee filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year on 04.02.2021, declaring a total loss . The said return was selected for scrutiny and, accordingly, statutory notices under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) were issued and duly complied During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing noticed that the assessee had claimed commission stated to have been paid to certain agents for collection of daily deposits from its members. The Assessing Officer required the assessee to furnish the details of members and to justify the allowability of commission expenditure with supporting evidence. Despite repeated opportunities, the assessee failed to furnish any cogent explanation Printed from counselvise.com or verifiable material in support of the claim. A final show notice dated 16.08.2022 was issued, proposing disa said commission. 2.2 In response, the assessee submitted that the commission paid was less than 5% of the aggregate deposits of therefore, being negligible, the same ought not to be disallowed. It was further contended TDS deducted was submitted. However, the assessee did not produce the relevant bank statements evidencing such payments, nor did it furnish any agreement or written contract with the alleged commission agents. In the absence of such supporting material, the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure of added the same to the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the account reflecting commission payments on various dates, but did not produce the bank statements or any agreements with the agents. In the absence of credible documentary evidence, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance “6.3 First of all it is pertinent to discussed Section 68 of the Income tax Act which reads as under: \"Cash credits. 68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee Jay Maharashtra Co or verifiable material in support of the claim. A final show notice dated 16.08.2022 was issued, proposing disa In response, the assessee submitted that the commission paid was less than 5% of the aggregate deposits of ₹11,38,84,394/ therefore, being negligible, the same ought not to be disallowed. It was further contended that a list of agents along with the details of TDS deducted was submitted. However, the assessee did not produce the relevant bank statements evidencing such payments, nor did it furnish any agreement or written contract with the alleged . In the absence of such supporting material, the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure of ₹56,09,642/ added the same to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the appellate authority, the assessee filed a ledger account reflecting commission payments on various dates, but did not produce the bank statements or any agreements with the agents. In the absence of credible documentary evidence, the Ld. he disallowance observing as under: 6.3 First of all it is pertinent to discussed Section 68 of the Income tax Act which reads as under: \"Cash credits. 68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee Jay Maharashtra Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. 3 ITA No. 3856/MUM/2025 or verifiable material in support of the claim. A final show-cause notice dated 16.08.2022 was issued, proposing disallowance of the In response, the assessee submitted that the commission paid 11,38,84,394/-, and therefore, being negligible, the same ought not to be disallowed. It that a list of agents along with the details of TDS deducted was submitted. However, the assessee did not produce the relevant bank statements evidencing such payments, nor did it furnish any agreement or written contract with the alleged . In the absence of such supporting material, the 56,09,642/- and Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the appellate authority, the assessee filed a ledger account reflecting commission payments on various dates, but did not produce the bank statements or any agreements with the agents. In the absence of credible documentary evidence, the Ld. observing as under: 6.3 First of all it is pertinent to discussed Section 68 of the Income 68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee Printed from counselvise.com maintained for any previous year, and explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income the income of the assessee of that p Provided that where the assessee is a company (not being a company in which the public are substantially interested), and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever nam explanation offered by such assessee be not satisfactory, unless (a) the person, being a resident in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such company also offers an explanation about the nature and s (b) such explanation in the opinion of the Assessing Officer aforesaid has been found to be satisfactory: Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply if the person, in whose name the sum refer recorded, is a venture capital fund or a venture caplial company as referred to in clause (23FB)of section 10.\" In view of the above discussion, as the assessee could not providereasonable explanation to the aforementioned bad debt loan funds, therefore, the said credit entries in the books. of accounts remained unexplained, Hence, the difference in bad debt loan funds of Rs. 4,31.805/ treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and ad the income of the assessee. 4. The assessee has preferred the present appeal before us. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 150 days in filing the appeal. A petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit has been filed, explainin order of the Ld. CIT(A) was served only through the Income portal, and no physical copy was dispatched. The assessee, being unaware of the change in the mode of service, became aware of the Jay Maharashtra Co maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income the income of the assessee of that previous year: Provided that where the assessee is a company (not being a company in which the public are substantially interested), and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever nam explanation offered by such assessee-company shall be deemed to be not satisfactory, unless— (a) the person, being a resident in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such company also offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited; and (b) such explanation in the opinion of the Assessing Officer aforesaid has been found to be satisfactory: Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply if the person, in whose name the sum referred to therein is recorded, is a venture capital fund or a venture caplial company as n clause (23FB)of section 10.\" In view of the above discussion, as the assessee could not providereasonable explanation to the aforementioned bad debt loan funds, therefore, the said credit entries in the books. of accounts remained unexplained, Hence, the difference in bad debt loan funds of Rs. 4,31.805/-[Rs.29,00,000/07 Rs: 24,68,195/- treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and ad the income of the assessee. (Addition: Rs.4,31,805/ The assessee has preferred the present appeal before us. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 150 days in filing the appeal. A petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit has been filed, explainin order of the Ld. CIT(A) was served only through the Income portal, and no physical copy was dispatched. The assessee, being unaware of the change in the mode of service, became aware of the Jay Maharashtra Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. 4 ITA No. 3856/MUM/2025 the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as Provided that where the assessee is a company (not being a company in which the public are substantially interested), and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever name called, any company shall be deemed to (a) the person, being a resident in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such company also offers an explanation ource of such sum so credited; and (b) such explanation in the opinion of the Assessing Officer Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall red to therein is recorded, is a venture capital fund or a venture caplial company as In view of the above discussion, as the assessee could not providereasonable explanation to the aforementioned bad debt loan funds, therefore, the said credit entries in the books. of accounts remained unexplained, Hence, the difference in bad debt loan funds - ] are being treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and added to Rs.4,31,805/-)” The assessee has preferred the present appeal before us. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 150 days in filing the appeal. A petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit has been filed, explaining that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was served only through the Income-tax portal, and no physical copy was dispatched. The assessee, being unaware of the change in the mode of service, became aware of the Printed from counselvise.com appellate order only upon receipt of a penalty show was contended that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional but occasioned due to the changed procedure of communication of orders. The Ld. Departmental Representative opposed the condonation of delay. 4.1 We have considered rival considered opinion, the explanation tendered by the assessee constitutes “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as applicable to appellate proceedings under the Act. Accordingly, i is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. On merits, the dispute pertains to the disallowance of commission expenditure of is that its members comprise small vendors and businessmen, and in order to recover the loans collects daily deposits through appointed agents, to whom the impugned commission has been paid. A list of 17 such agents, the amount of deposits collected, the commission paid, and tax deducted at source thereon has been furnished before us, which is available on Paper Book page 4. payments ranging from a few thousand to several lakhs of rupees , against annual collection of the deposits in the range from Rs. lakhs to crores. A list of those commission agents under: Jay Maharashtra Co appellate order only upon receipt of a penalty show- was contended that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional but occasioned due to the changed procedure of communication of orders. The Ld. Departmental Representative opposed the condonation of delay. We have considered rival submissions on this issue. In our considered opinion, the explanation tendered by the assessee constitutes “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as applicable to appellate proceedings under the Act. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, the delay is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. On merits, the dispute pertains to the disallowance of commission expenditure of ₹56,09,642/-. The case of the assessee ers comprise small vendors and businessmen, and in order to recover the loans/credit granted to them, the assessee collects daily deposits through appointed agents, to whom the impugned commission has been paid. A list of 17 such agents, the sits collected, the commission paid, and tax deducted at source thereon has been furnished before us, which is Paper Book page 4. The details reveal commission payments ranging from a few thousand to several lakhs of rupees , ollection of the deposits in the range from Rs. A list of those commission agents is Jay Maharashtra Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. 5 ITA No. 3856/MUM/2025 -cause notice. It was contended that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional but occasioned due to the changed procedure of communication of orders. The Ld. Departmental Representative opposed the submissions on this issue. In our considered opinion, the explanation tendered by the assessee constitutes “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as applicable to appellate proceedings under n the interest of substantial justice, the delay is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. On merits, the dispute pertains to the disallowance of . The case of the assessee ers comprise small vendors and businessmen, and granted to them, the assessee collects daily deposits through appointed agents, to whom the impugned commission has been paid. A list of 17 such agents, the sits collected, the commission paid, and tax deducted at source thereon has been furnished before us, which is The details reveal commission payments ranging from a few thousand to several lakhs of rupees , ollection of the deposits in the range from Rs. is reproduced as Printed from counselvise.com SR.f JO IAGENTNAME Address 1 NITESH RAMESH MESTRY Shakti Room No. 15, first floor, Khetwadi Mumbai 2 SUNITA NAVNATH NIPANE Mhananda Co Society, B Wing, Yashodhan Nagar 3rd Floor, Thane west Thane-400606 3 ARCHANA GANESH SURYAVANSHI 306 H Wing, Shree Ganesh Residency, Veer Mata Jijae Nagar Moregaon, Nalasopara East 401209 4 VILAS NIVRUTI BONDRE |Sal Wadi, Tell Lane, Transit Camp Number 5, Andheri East Mumbai 5 ISARIKA SATISH SHINDE Laxman Hira Apartment, Room Number 203, Sector Number 22, Turbe, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai 400705 6 MILIND CHANDRAKANT SOGAM khetwadi 4th Cross Lane, Chandan Bhuvan, Khetwadi Mumbai 400004. 7 SMITA PRAKASH BENDRE 44 Kabi Bhai Building, Room Number 11, 2nd Floor, Sant Sena M Marg, 2nd Kumbharwada Mumbai 400004 8 SURESH SHRINAG 5HINDKAR Room Number 127, Reva Housing Society, 3rd Floor, Karanjale, Navi Mumbai, Panvel 9 (AMAKANT RAJNATH ADAV 402 Shri Balaji Krupa Apartment, flinnapurna Estate Indralok 6, 3hayandar East, Thane 401105. 10 WSHREE PRASHANT f 10RAWALE Hanuman Chawl, Pande Compound, toom Number 14, Jivalapada Road, Jorivali East, Mumbai Jay Maharashtra Co Address PAN NO ANNUAL COLLECTION of DEPOSITS Niwas Khetwadi 6th Lane Room No. 15, first floor, Khetwadi Mumbai-400004 BXAPM7598D 5,53,980 Mhananda Co-Op Housing Society, B Wing, Yashodhan Nagar 3rd Floor, Thane west 400606 ASXPN0903E 2,64,58,033 306 H Wing, Shree Ganesh Residency, Veer Mata Jijae Nagar Moregaon, Nalasopara East - 401209 BAVPD8229C 1,66,58,135 |Sal Wadi, Tell Lane, Transit Number 5, Andheri East Mumbai- 400093 A00PB4510N Laxman Hira Apartment, Room Number 203, Sector Number 22, Turbe, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai 400705 EQGPS7804Q 95,28,625 khetwadi 4th Cross Lane, Chandan Bhuvan, Khetwadi Mumbai 400004. BFKPS5528F 5,66,100 44 Kabi Bhai Building, Room Number 11, 2nd Floor, Sant Sena M Marg, 2nd Kumbharwada Mumbai 400004 AQDPB2172K 67,43,440 Room Number 127, Reva Housing Society, 3rd Floor, Karanjale, Navi Mumbai, Panvel AUNPS7386L 1,54,79,950 402 Shri Balaji Krupa Apartment, flinnapurna Estate Indralok 6, 3hayandar East, Thane 401105. AALPY9526E 62,31,000 Hanuman Chawl, Pande Compound, toom Number 14, Jivalapada Road, Jorivali East, Mumbai DDDPM9033G 2,20,47,495 Jay Maharashtra Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. 6 ITA No. 3856/MUM/2025 ANNUAL COLLECTION of DEPOSITS COMMISSION EARNED @ 3% TDS 5% 5,53,980 16,620 2,64,58,033 7,93,742 1 38,342 1,66,58,135 4,99,745 23,866 7,18,227 34,085 95,28,625 2,85,857 13,615 5,66,100 16,984 ' 67,43,440 2,02,303 9,639 1,54,79,950 4,64,400 22,371 62,31,000 1,86,930 8,885 2,20,47,495 6,61,424 30,757 Printed from counselvise.com 11 4NDANA RUPAJI KESHVE uithone Chawl, Aliyawar Jung Marg, Jear Shankar Temple, ShivajiNagar, etaki Pada, Dahisar East, Mumbai 00068 12 JPESH SURESH DEVGADE P C R andurang Wadi, hawl, Mira Palace A Wing 301, Mira oad Thane 401107 13 JPALI HANMANT SHINDE anu Pada, Hanuman Nagar Kandivali ast Borivali 400066 14 ROHIT RAMDAS GHORPADE Ganesh Apartment, 4th floor Yashodhan Nagar, Thane West 400606 15 RAGINIJAYWANT SHINDE Ashara Metro Tower 3005, Vartak Nagar Thane West 400606 16 TANAJI MURUDHAR KOLI Jadhavaji Yadav Chawl, Room number 6/8, Devala Pada, Borivali East, Mumbai 400066. 17 SACHIN LAXMAN MANE 05 B Sidhhivlnayak Chawl, Data Pada Road, Borivali East Mumbai 400066 5.2 The assessee produced, for the first time before us, copies of its bank statements evidencing payment of commission. counsel for the assessee referred to said bank statement of the assessee depicting the payment of commission to the agents admission. Since this material was not authorities, it constitutes additional evidence. 5.3 Further, it has been submitted that the Assessing Officer, in his show-cause notic commission payments to non Jay Maharashtra Co uithone Chawl, Aliyawar Jung Marg, Jear Shankar Temple, ShivajiNagar, etaki Pada, Dahisar East, Mumbai 00068 AWFPK8025N 1,22,77,190 andurang Wadi, Sidhhivainayak hawl, Mira Palace A Wing 301, Mira oad Thane 401107 BEIPD6085F 99,92,695 anu Pada, Hanuman Nagar Kandivali ast Borivali 400066 DEAPS9344P 1,88,16,458 Ganesh Apartment, 4th floor Yashodhan Nagar, Thane West CWRPG6253Q 81,98,330 Ashara Metro Tower 3005, Vartak Nagar Thane West 400606 DXDPS2687J 34,60,200 Jadhavaji Yadav Chawl, Room number 6/8, Devala Pada, Borivali East, Mumbai 400066. AVUPK1869N 3,00,230 05 B Sidhhivlnayak Chawl, Data Pada Road, Borivali East Mumbai 400066 BTKPM6676C 57,35,002 Total 18,69,87,743 The assessee produced, for the first time before us, copies of its bank statements evidencing payment of commission. counsel for the assessee referred to said bank statement of the depicting the payment of commission to the agents Since this material was not produced before the lower authorities, it constitutes additional evidence. Further, it has been submitted that the Assessing Officer, in cause notice, only questioned the allowability of commission payments to non-members by relying upon the Jay Maharashtra Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. 7 ITA No. 3856/MUM/2025 1,22,77,190 3,68,316 17,465 99,92,695 2,99,783 14,004 1,88,16,458 5,64,496 25,251 81,98,330 2,45,950 11,598 34,60,200 1,03,807 4,652 3,00,230 9,007 57,35,002 1,72,051 8,602 18,69,87,743 56,09,642 2,63,132 The assessee produced, for the first time before us, copies of its bank statements evidencing payment of commission. The Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to said bank statement of the depicting the payment of commission to the agents for before the lower Further, it has been submitted that the Assessing Officer, in e, only questioned the allowability of members by relying upon the Printed from counselvise.com judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. CIT dated 12.01.2021). However, the fi the ground of lack of supporting documents, without affording adequate opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim. 5.4 Regarding copy of agreement Ld. counsel for the assessee submitt were entered into in writing and therefore, the assessee was willing to produce all the commission agents before the Assessing Officer for verification of claim of the services rendered by them along with necessary evidence there 5.5 The Ld. counsel has given an undertaking that, if the matter is restored, the assessee shall produce the concerned commission agents before the Assessing Officer for verification of the genuineness of services rendered and the payments made. 5.6 In view of the foregoing, and having regard to the fact that the assessee has now produced bank statements for the first time additional evidence and has undertaken to produce the agents for verification, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires fresh examination. In the interest of justice, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, who shall verify the genuineness of the commission payments, after affording adequate oppo Jay Maharashtra Co judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Coop. Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. CIT (Civil Appeal Nos. 7343 & 7350 of 2019, dated 12.01.2021). However, the final disallowance was made on the ground of lack of supporting documents, without affording adequate opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim. Regarding copy of agreement with the commission agents Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that no such agreement were entered into in writing and therefore, the assessee was willing to produce all the commission agents before the Assessing Officer for verification of claim of the services rendered by them along with necessary evidence thereof The Ld. counsel has given an undertaking that, if the matter is restored, the assessee shall produce the concerned commission agents before the Assessing Officer for verification of the genuineness of services rendered and the payments made. In view of the foregoing, and having regard to the fact that the assessee has now produced bank statements for the first time and has undertaken to produce the agents for verification, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires fresh examination. In the interest of justice, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, who shall verify the genuineness of the commission payments, after affording adequate oppo Jay Maharashtra Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. 8 ITA No. 3856/MUM/2025 Mavilayi Service Coop. (Civil Appeal Nos. 7343 & 7350 of 2019, nal disallowance was made on the ground of lack of supporting documents, without affording adequate opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim. with the commission agents , the ed that no such agreements were entered into in writing and therefore, the assessee was willing to produce all the commission agents before the Assessing Officer for verification of claim of the services rendered by them along with The Ld. counsel has given an undertaking that, if the matter is restored, the assessee shall produce the concerned commission agents before the Assessing Officer for verification of the genuineness of services rendered and the payments made. In view of the foregoing, and having regard to the fact that the assessee has now produced bank statements for the first time as and has undertaken to produce the agents for verification, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires fresh examination. In the interest of justice, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, who shall verify the genuineness of the commission payments, after affording adequate opportunity of Printed from counselvise.com hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall cooperate fully and produce the agents as undertaken. assessee on merit is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowe statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court. Sd/- (SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 09/09/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Jay Maharashtra Co hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall cooperate fully and produce the agents as undertaken. The ground raised by the is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowe Order pronounced in the open Court. Sd/ (SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Jay Maharashtra Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. 9 ITA No. 3856/MUM/2025 hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall cooperate fully and The ground raised by the is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "