TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1430
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Year (AY) 2016-17, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer (in short, 'AO') u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 11.12.2018. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making disallowance of commission expense of Rs. 88,81,886/-. 2. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal." 2. Facts of the case in brief are that appellant filed return of income on 17.10.2016 for A.Y 2016-17 declaring total income of Rs. 13,79,990/-. Notices u/s 143(2) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,78,295/- out of total commission expenses of Rs. 88,81,886/-. The assessee also submitted PAN and Aadhar card of the agents for Rs. 55,05,345/-. It was submitted that all payments were through banking channel which proves genuineness of the expenses. The assessee submitted that the ratio of commission expenses to the total commission income was 64.85% in the year under consideration as against 56.88% and 70.47% in AYs 2017-18 and 2018- 19 respectively. Hence, there is no major fluctuation in the ratio of commission expenses. It was further submitted that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS for the year under consideration because it was the first year of audit u/s 44AB of the Act. The submission of the assessee and additional evidenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....14-15 and 2015-16 and assessment order for AY 2020-21 where commission expense was accepted by the AO. The Ld. AR submitted that the appellant is in the same business from AY 2014-15 and has been incurring commission expenses every year. He submitted that confirmations of all parties are given at pages 29 to 163 of the paper book. Such details had been given to the CIT(A) which was forwarded to AO for his comment. The AO has not submitted the remand report because nothing adverse in the submission of the appellant was found by him. The Ld. AR also submitted that the sales in FY 2015-16 was Rs. 66,88,803/-, which was below the limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for the audit u/s 44AB of the Act. This is evident from page 165 of the paper book. He al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....furnished the complete details i.e., confirmation of account with identity proof of various parties. As these details were not filed before the AO, the CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO, but he did not submit any comment or objection on these evidences. It is seen from these details that the appellant had filed confirmation of account of all parties and proof of identities (PAN and Aadhar card) of most of the parties to whom commission payments were made. It is also found that such commission expenditure is a regular feature of the assessee's business and the same has been regularly claimed in the return of income filed for various year. It is seen from page 3 of the paper book that there is not much variation in the ratio of co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring appellate proceedings were forwarded to the AO by the CIT(A) but the AO did not reject the evidences nor raised any objection. If he was not satisfied, he could have made independent inquiry as per law including by issue of notices u/s 133(6) of the Act. However, he did not raise any objection in this regard. On the other hand, the Revenue has accepted commission expenses incurred in AY 2020-21 after issuing notices u/s 133(6) to the persons to whom commission were paid. The order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act for AY 2020- 21 was passed on 06.09.2022 accepting the returned income of Rs. 44,24,590/- declared by the appellant. Thus, genuineness of commission expenditure was accepted in AY 2020-21. Considering the factual matrix of th....