TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 951
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, is bad in law, contrary to facts, opposed to principles of natural justice, and liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned NFAC, Delhi erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 151A read with Section 144B of the Act with effect from 12.03.2022, whereas the notification issued under Section 151A is operative only w.e.f. 29.03.2022, rendering the assessment proceedings without authority of law and liable to be quashed. (Additional ground) 3. a) The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in arbitrarily restricting the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome on 29.03.2021 declaring gross total income of Rs. 9,17,724/ -. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Ld. AO observed that against the gross commission receipts of Rs. 9,68,850/- reflected in Form No. 26AS, the assessee had disclosed commission income of only Rs. 4,89,900/ -. In the absence of supporting documentary evidence on account of the expenditure of Rs. 4,78,950/- incurred by the assessee towards the commission income, the Ld. AO treated the entire commission receipt of Rs. 9,68,850/- as taxable income and accordingly made an addition of Rs. 4,78,950/- being the difference between the commission income reflected in Form No. 26AS and the income offered by the assessee. The Ld. AO further observed that the assessee h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n receipts during the year under consideration. The Ld. AR submitted that during the year under consideration the assessee earned gross commission receipts of Rs. 9,68,850/- from M/s. GGR Housing Pvt. Ltd. He submitted that due to the advanced age of the assessee, assistance of certain persons had to be taken for carrying out commission-related activities and various administrative and incidental expenditures had also been incurred. The Ld. AR invited our attention to page no. 15 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), wherein the working furnished by the assessee showing net commission income of Rs. 4,89,900/- after claiming expenditure of Rs. 4,78,950/- has been reproduced. The Ld. AR submitted that although the Ld. CIT(A) accepted the propositio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of the expenditure claimed either before the lower authorities or before the Tribunal. Accordingly, he prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be upheld. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee has not pressed ground nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the appeal. Accordingly, ground nos. 1,2,4 and 5 of the appeal of the assessee are dismissed as not pressed. 8. The only issue pressed by the assessee under ground no. 3 relates to the quantum of expenditure allowable against the gross commission income earned during the year under consideration. In this regard, we have gone through page no. 15 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), which is to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mission income and disallowance of deduction u/s. 80C to the extent of Rs. 58,659/- towards life insurance premia on policies taken in the name of family members. The appellant has produced copies of receipts of premia paid towards life insurance policy. The addition of Rs. 58,659/- is, therefore, deleted. The appellant has given a break up of total expenditure of Rs. 4,78,950/- claimed against commission income. The AO has observed that during the entire year, the appellant made cash withdrawal of Rs. 3,74,000/ -. Therefore, expenses of Rs. 4,78,950/- towards commission income and payment of LIC premia in cash out of such withdrawal is not possible. I agree with the view of the AO because a minimum amount is also required....