Tribunal dismisses Revenue's appeal, upholding CIT(A)'s decision on brokerage charges disallowance.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of brokerage charges. The Tribunal found the AO's restriction of brokerage to 2% arbitrary and unsupported by evidence, noting the genuineness of the transaction and the broker's existence were accepted. The disallowance was deemed unfounded, leading to the appeal's dismissal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of disallowance made towards brokerage charges.
2. Erroneous nature of the CIT(A)'s order.
3. Potential addition, alteration, or amendment of grounds of appeal by the appellant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Disallowance Made Towards Brokerage Charges:

The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of Rs. 19,19,247/- towards brokerage charges paid to M/s Ajanta Estate & Developers on the purchase of land. The AO had restricted the brokerage to 2% instead of the 2.8% claimed by the assessee, resulting in the disallowance. The AO's decision was based on the broker's non-response to a notice issued under section 133(6) and the assessee's failure to produce the broker.

The assessee argued that it had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the brokerage charges, including the broker's address, PAN, invoice, TDS certificate, and proof of payment via account payee cheques. The assessee contended that the AO's decision to restrict the brokerage to 2% was arbitrary and not supported by any concrete evidence. The CIT(A) agreed with the assessee, noting that the AO had not disputed the purchase of the land or the payment of brokerage but had made an ad hoc disallowance without any substantial basis. The CIT(A) emphasized that the AO had the power to enforce the broker's attendance but did not do so, and the disallowance was based on conjecture and surmises.

2. Erroneous Nature of the CIT(A)'s Order:

The Revenue claimed that the CIT(A)'s order was erroneous and untenable in law. However, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal noted that the AO had accepted the genuineness of the transaction and the existence of the broker, as evidenced by the allowance of brokerage to the extent of 2%. The Tribunal observed that the AO's restriction of the brokerage to 2% was arbitrary and not supported by any material evidence. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the disallowance was not justified in the absence of any adverse material or inquiry.

3. Potential Addition, Alteration, or Amendment of Grounds of Appeal by the Appellant:

The appellant (Revenue) sought leave to add, alter, or amend any/all grounds of appeal before or during the hearing. However, this issue became moot as the Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on the merits of the case.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of brokerage charges. The Tribunal found that the AO's restriction of the brokerage to 2% was arbitrary and not supported by any concrete evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that the genuineness of the transaction and the existence of the broker were accepted by the AO, and the disallowance was based on conjecture and surmises. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s order was sound and justified, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

---