SURINDER BABU BUDHIRAJA ,DELHI V. ITO WARD 36(2), DELHI

ITA 4980/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Surinder Babu Budhiraja, the proprietor of Star Fruit & Vegetable Co., who appealed against the order of the Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Bengaluru, which had disallowed various expenditure claims totaling Rs. 63,98,658, with 30% disallowed amounting to Rs. 19,45,956. The Tribunal noted that there was no dispute regarding the allowability of the expenditure claims in principle but criticized the lower authorities for not discussing the market comparables while applying a 30% commission disallowance. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to reduce the disallowance to Rs. 1,00,000, emphasizing that this decision should not be treated as a precedent.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 793646 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 14-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PANKAJ KUMAR MISHRA; G. D. SINGLA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 4980/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Surinder Babu Budhiraja, Prop. Star Fruit & Vegetable Co. Shiv Shanker Alu Co., Shive Shanker Lehsun Co., 147, Tower-10, Supreme Enclave, Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi-110091 Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-36(2), New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AFDPB4251N Assessee by: Sh. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, CA & Sh. G. D. Singla, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.09.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Bengaluru’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1076808001(1) dated 09.06.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have disallowed the assessee’s various expenditure claims; totaling to Rs.63,98,658/- to the extent of 30% thereof coming to Rs.19,45,956/-; in assessment Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4980/Del/2025 Surinder Babu Budhiraja 2 order dated 29.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. Suffice to say, it is therefore clear that there is no dispute between the parties regarding allowability of the expenditure claim(s) in principle. This is indeed coupled with the fact that both the learned lower authorities have not even discussed the corresponding market comparables in the assessee’s commission agent business whilst invoking the impugned commission disallowance @ 30%. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum disallowance/addition of Rs.1,00,000/- only herein would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.18,19,596/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 5. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23/09/2025. Sd/- (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated: 23/09/2025 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Printed from counselvise.com "