TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 683
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... circumstances of the case and further as explanation offered the order passed by learned CIT (A) is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. 2. The order passed by learned CIT (A) is based on surmises and unnatural assumptions. 3. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and further as per the explanation offered the learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing the payment of commission amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- to Mr. Alliance Intermediaries & Network P. Ltd. for use of their account. 4. The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the order of AO towards addition of commission paid to M/s. Alliance Intermediaries & Network Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- 5. The learned CIT (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lared additional income of Rs.5,00,000/- for the year under consideration. Then a reopening under section 143(3) & 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') was initiated and in response thereto the assessee has filed revised return on 26.03.2011 declaring income of Rs.4,43,700/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the original return was not filed within time and the revised return was held as nonest and invalid. The AO thereafter framed the assessment on 20.03.2014 at the income of Rs.7,58,670/-. 3. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed. Thereafter the assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal which has restored the matter back to the AO to make fresh assessment afte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i about the genuineness of the said sub-brokerage payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- to one of his concerns. In view of the reconfirmation of Shri Mukesh Choksi in course of the cross-examination about the dubious nature of the transactions carried out through the said bank account by charging commission @ 0.15%, the action of the AO of concluding that the assessee's claim of sub-brokerage payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- is bogus, cannot be faulted. Moreover, the contention of the assessee that Shri Jayesh Sampath, one of the another Directors of the said concern of Shri Mukesh Choksi, had filed an affidavit accepting having received the said sub-brokerage payment, is not very relevant since it is an open secret that Shri Mukesh Choksi was the maste....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dition being not part of the assessment order has been made without issuing any notice of enhancement to the assessee and that the assessee has paid the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to M/s. Alliance Intermediaries & Network Pvt. Ltd. on account of commission through banking channel and that one of the directors of M/s. Alliance Intermediaries & Network Pvt. Ltd. has admitted the receipt of said commission amount which is liable to be allowed as deductable expenses. 9. Undisputedly in the first round of litigation the assessee has not claimed deduction of Rs.10,00,000/- claimed to have been paid as brokerage to M/s. Alliance Intermediaries & Network Pvt. Ltd. It is also not in dispute that in the revised return the assessee has claimed this a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....revised return showing an income of Rs.4,43,700/- is to be treated as a valid return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. So the Ld. CIT(A) has considered the claim of the assessee qua deduction of Rs.10,00,000/- on the basis of revised return but without issuance of any notice to the assessee which otherwise amounts to enhancement. 12. We are of the considered view that when factual aspect qua claim of Rs.10,00,000/- made by the assessee has not been examined by the AO the Ld. CIT(A) without issuing notice to the assessee or without calling any remand report from the AO could not have decided the same. The Ld. A.Rs for the parties to the appeal have unanimously contended that in such circumstances to decide the issu....