TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 831
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion paid. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee an individual is a proprietor of M/s.Life Line Solutions, which is engaged in the business of dealing in medical equipments and devices. The assessee, during the relevant previous year, apart from earning income from business, had earned income from other sources and also declared capital gains. For the assessment year 2016-2017, the return of income was filed on 20.09.2016 declaring total income of Rs.23,58,490. The assessment was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T.Act was issued on 13.07.2017. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain the details of commission expenditure incurred aggregating to Rs.1,36,29,7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....paid to 13 parties amounting to Rs.93,53,500 as not a genuine expenditure and disallowed the same. The relevant observation of the A.O. in adding the amount of Rs.93,53,500, reads as follows:- • "The assessee has not furnished any written agreements entered with the parties to whom commission was paid. • The assessee has not furnished any written correspondence with these parties regarding the customers introduced by them and sales effected thereof. • In a nutshell the assessee could not produce any documentary evidence in support of the services rendered to support the basis of payment of commission. • Considering the aforesaid facts in the light of the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... total sales of Rs.5,34,01,103/- which comes to 25.52% of gross sales made and the same is not in line with similar businesses." 4. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee primarily holding that the communication sent from the office of the first appellate authority for furnishing the written submission were not complied by the assessee. Further, the CIT(A) held that the assessee has not provided any evidence to substantiate his grounds of appeal before him. Therefore, the CIT(A) concluded that he was constrained to affirm the order of the A.O. in making the disallowance of commission expenditure amounting to Rs.93,53,500.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mission expenditure and has passed the impugned order on the premise that no submissions were made, whereas the documents were available before, both the lower authorities, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The learned CIT(A) ought to have provided one more opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order under the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The authorities below failed to appreciate that higher turnover achieved, was on account of expenditure incurred towards commission which was a well settled practice in the nature of business, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in view o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....02.2023 the written submissions, the details / confirmations, etc. It was contended that since the impugned order has been passed only on 27.02.2023, the written submission and the documents / evidences furnished in support of assessee's contention ought to have been taken note by the first appellate authority before rendering the impugned ex parte order. 7. The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the A.O. and the CIT(A). 8. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. On the facts on record, it is clear that the assessee had filed written submission and the evidences / documents in support of his case before the first appellate authority. The acknowledgement for the same is placed on re....