UDITA GUPTA,JAIPUR V. ITO WARD,1, KISHANGARH

ITA 1019/JPR/2025

AI Insights

Udita Gupta appealed against the order of the Learned CIT(A), NFAC, which upheld the disallowance of commission expenses amounting to Rs. 39,64,254 for the assessment year 2020-21. The Income Tax Department had initially disallowed these expenses due to insufficient evidence proving their genuineness, suspecting them to be excessive or bogus to reduce taxable income. Despite multiple notices, Gupta failed to provide adequate documentary evidence to substantiate the claims. The CIT(A) dismissed her appeal for lack of evidence, leading to her challenge in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal noted the absence of mention of certain submitted documents in the CIT(A)'s order and decided to remand the case for a fresh assessment, allowing Gupta another opportunity to substantiate her claims.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 778664 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 10-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJEEV SOGANI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; TDS; Non compliance; Bogus
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1019/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2020-21 Udita Gupta Plot No. 356, Devi Nagar, New Sanganer Road Sodala, jaipur. Cuke Vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Kishangarh LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BHJPG3020P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. Rajeev Sogani, C.A. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 14 /10/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 15/10/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member, Appellant has challenged order dated 13.06.2025, passed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, whereby the appeal filed by her challenging assessment order dated 19.09.2022, relating to the assessment year 2020- 21, came to be dismissed. As a result, assessment order of disallowance of commission expenses, to the tune of Rs. 39,64,254/-, came to be sustained. 2. Arguments heard. File perused. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 1019/JPR/2025 Udita Gupta vs. ITO FACTS IN BRIEF 3. As is available from the assessment order, department found that the assessee had claimed large amount of commission expenses and shown low net profit; that the commission expenses, as compared to the turnover were high; that there was possibility of the assessee having shown excess/bogus commission payments, with a view to increase the amount of expenditure and to reduce its profit/ taxable income. Accordingly, it was found to be a case where genuineness of commission expenses required verification. That is how, the case was selected under “complete category”. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, followed by other three notices u/s 142(1) came to be issued to the assessee. However, the assessee failed to furnish any reply. 4. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer proceeded ex-parte. Show cause notice dated 17.02.2022 was issued to the assessee. It was followed by another show cause notice accompanied by draft assessment order dated 17.03.2022. The assessee, in reply to the said show cause notice, put forth her claim on 30.03.2022 with some details. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued another show cause notice dated 06.09.2022, calling upon the assessee to explain/justify the Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 1019/JPR/2025 Udita Gupta vs. ITO commission expenses, by producing documentary evidence, such as name(s), address (es) of the parties, PANs, confirmation from parties, Bank account statements, details of TDS etc. However, the assessee failed to submit any such detail. 5. That is how, an addition of Rs. 39,64,254/- was made while disallowing the commission expenses. Matter comes up by way of First Appeal 6. When the assessment order was challenged, Learned CIT(A), NFAC found that in the assessment proceedings, the assessee had submitted only a ledger account of expenses. In other words, no evidence except ledger account pertaining to expenses, was submitted in proof of genuineness of payments/expenditures. Learned CIT(A), NFAC observed that during appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted party-wise ledger for each sub head of the expenses, but she failed to produce any other details/evidences to prove genuineness of the said expenses. While so observing, Learned CIT(A), NFAC dismissed the appeal. Contentions 7. In the course of arguments when attention of the above said observation made by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, regarding non production of Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 1019/JPR/2025 Udita Gupta vs. ITO details/evidences in the appellate proceedings has been drawn, Ld. AR for the appellant has referred to the Index of the paper book, whereby papers from page 70 to 123 are stated to have been filed, before Learned CIT(A). Those documents were copies of sample invoices of Amazon, Flipkart, Shopclues, Gxpress and Paytm. Learned AR for the appellant has reiterated that said invoices were submitted before Learned CIT(A), NFAC, but somehow in the impugned order, this fact does not find mention. 8. As noticed above, during assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted her response only to the show cause notice dated 17.03.2022, which was accompanied by draft assessment order. In para 2, page 2 of the assessment order, there is detail of the notices issued by the department to the assessee. These details reveal that out of 7 notices issued to the assessee, she responded to only one show cause notice dated 17.03.2022, and that too only in part, but failed to submit any response to the show cause notice dated 17.02.2022 and the subsequent show cause notice dated 06.09.2022. In this way, as observed by the Assessing Officer in para 4.1 of the said assessment order, the assessee failed to explain/justify commission Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 1019/JPR/2025 Udita Gupta vs. ITO expenditure, due to the non production documentary evidence that was required from the assessee. When attention of ld. AR for the appellant has been drawn to these observations made by the Assessing Officer, and that in response to 6 other notices, the assessee did not put forth any response, Ld. AR for the appellant has requested for remand of the matter to the Assessing Officer for effective adjudication of the matter. 9. In the given situation, Ld. DR for the department has no objection to the prayer for remand of the matter to the Assessing Officer. 10. When the issue of genuineness of commission expenditure is involved, and the assessee failed to submit before the authorities the relevant documentary evidence, for effective adjudication of the issue, the matter certainly deserves to be remanded to the Assessing Officer. Result 11. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is disposed of, for statistical purposes and the matter is restored to the files of the Assessing Officer, for afresh assessment order, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, of course in accordance with law. However, the appellant is burdened with costs of Rs. 2,000/- for non compliance, as noticed above. Costs to be deposited with “Prime Minister’s Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 1019/JPR/2025 Udita Gupta vs. ITO National Relief Fund” and receipt to be produced before the Assessing Officer before the commencement of proceedings there on remand. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 15/10/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 15/10/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Udita Gupta, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-1, Kishangarh. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 1019/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "