Retraction and lack of corroboration defeat commission additions; reassessment beyond three years also fails the jurisdictional threshold.

ITAT Mumbai discussed that additions for alleged commission income could not stand where retracted statements and third-party tally data were unsupported by independent corroboration, bank trail, cash trail, or direct evidence of receipt, and the addition was deleted. It also noted that reassessment notices issued beyond three years required material showing escapement represented by an asset, expenditure, or entry of Rs. 50 lakh or more; absent that jurisdictional threshold, the reassessments were quashed. Alleged gross profit on unaccounted cash sales and disallowance of commission expenditure were both sent back for fresh verification because the electronic material and expenditure claims required independent factual examination.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether additions towards alleged commission income based on retracted statements and third-party tally data could be sustained without independent corroborative evidence; (ii) Whether reassessment notices issued beyond three years were valid where the material did not disclose escapement of income of Rs. 50 lakh or more; (iii) Whether the addition of gross profit on alleged unaccounted cash sales in the hands of the assessee-company was sustainable; (iv) Whether the disallowance of commission expenditure required de novo verification.

Issue (i): Whether additions towards alleged commission income based on retracted statements and third-party tally data could be sustained without independent corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The additions were founded on statements recorded during search and on third-party digital material. The statements stood retracted, and the alleged corroboration in the form of WhatsApp chats and parallel tally data did not disclose any specific entry showing receipt of commission by the assessee. No cash trail, bank trail, or direct documentary evidence was brought on record to establish actual receipt of commission. The evidentiary foundation was therefore held to be absent.

Conclusion: The addition of alleged commission income was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether reassessment notices issued beyond three years were valid where the material did not disclose escapement of income of Rs. 50 lakh or more.

Analysis: For notices issued beyond three years, section 149(1)(b) required the Assessing Officer to possess books, documents, or evidence showing escapement represented in the form of an asset, expenditure, or entry amounting to or likely to amount to Rs. 50 lakh or more. The additions made were far below that threshold, and no material was shown to satisfy the jurisdictional condition.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings for the relevant years were quashed and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the addition of gross profit on alleged unaccounted cash sales in the hands of the assessee-company was sustainable.

Analysis: The addition rested on a parallel tally record recovered from third-party premises and on a statement later retracted. The assessee contended that the same transactions may already have been taxed in the hands of the Sunrise Group entities. The electronic material relied upon was also not supported by the certificate contemplated under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The factual question whether the very same sales had already been assessed elsewhere required verification.

Conclusion: The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and adjudication, and the issue was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue (iv): Whether the disallowance of commission expenditure required de novo verification.

Analysis: The assessee had produced invoices, ledgers, bank statements, tax deduction records, and sales details to support the commission payments. The disallowance was sustained mainly on the basis of an employee's statement and WhatsApp chats, but no independent verification of the recipients or of the services allegedly rendered was undertaken. The factual basis of the expenditure therefore required re-examination.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, and the ground was allowed for statistical purposes.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the core commission-addition and reopening issues, while the disputes relating to the alleged cash-sales profit and commission expenditure were sent back for fresh examination.

---