TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 48
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The learned Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee submits that period of delay is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, wherein the time limit for filing various appeals under general law as well as under special law were extended till 28.02.2022 and further 90 days' grace period was allowed with effect from 01.03.2022. Thus, the present appeal filed by assessee is within the extended period of limitation as prescribed by Hon'ble Apex Court to file appeal/appeals before various judicial forum / authorities. The ld AR for the assessee prayed for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. 3. On the other hand, Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr-DR) for the Revenue has not specifically objected for condonation of delay taken by Ld. AR for the assessee. 4. After considering the submission of both the parties, we find that the assessee has filed the present appeal, within the period covered by the order of Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 dated 08.03.2021. Thus, delay in the present appeal filed by assessee is condoned and the appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so confronted the fact that assessee was following the accrual method of accounting for income as well as expenses, the expenses of brokerage should have been accounted in the year in which, it was incurred i.e., in preceding year and not in the current year. The assessee has not furnished any conclusive evidence whether any services were rendered by those persons to whom brokerage shown to have been paid. The Assessing Officer further noted that entire estimate sale of the project was at Rs.8.77 crores on which the brokerage could be worked out at Rs.13,16,558/-. Though, assessee has claimed brokerage commission of Rs.34,98,838/- with is excessive and no comparable stances for incurring such brokerage expenses are given. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer also disallowed the brokerage expenses of Rs.23 lakhs while passing the assessment order. 6. Aggrieved by the addition / disallowance of brokerage expenses, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed detailed written submission. The submission of assessee is recorded in para-3.2 to 5.2.3 of the order of Ld. CIT(A). In the written submission, the assessee relied upon various decisions of H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs.2,65,555/-. On other disallowance of commissions payment of Rs.23 lakhs, Ld. CIT(A) held that before him, the assessee contended that there was a topographical mistake and assessee mentioned "brokerage commission payment" of Rs.23 lakhs against purchase of land. Such stand took by ae is self-serving statement, the assessee has taken this stand to wriggle out the situation, when Assessing Officer pointed out that no land was purchased by assessee during the year. Thus, the disallowance of Rs.23 lakhs was upheld by Ld. CIT(A). On various case law, Ld. CIT(A) differentiated the fact of present case vis-à-vis the case law relied by assessee. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 9. On perusal of various grounds of appeal, we find that assessee has not framed various grounds of appeal as per Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. The assessee has drafted the grounds of appeal in a narrative by referring various decisions of superior courts, which is not in accordance with law with the prescribed Rules. Therefore, for adjudication of core issues, we reframe the grounds of appeal in the following manner: i) Whether the Ld....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d brokerage commission of Rs.6,84,000/- on total sale value of flats at Rs.2.09 crores. The Assessing Officer allowed brokerage commission @ 2% of sale value and remaining were disallowed. The expenditure of brokerage commission was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of assessees business. The genuineness of such expenses were not in doubt. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that when genuineness of such expense is not doubted and expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of assessees business, same should be allowed and reasonableness of the expenditure has to be checked from the point of view of businessman as has been held in case of CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 (SC). The ld. AR for the assessee also relied on the following case law: • Shiv Raj Gupta Vs.s CIT, Delhi-IV (Civil Appeal No.12044 of 2016) dated 22.07.2020 (SC) • CIT vs. Walchand &Co. (1967) 3 SCR 214 (SC) • J.K.Woollen Manufacturers vs. CIT (1969) 1 SCR 525 (SC) • CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. (1976) 2 SCC 5 (SC) • Shahzada Nand & Sons v. CIT (1977) 3 SCC 432 (SC) • S....