The case number ITA 740/DEL/2019 involves the appellant, Shweta Sharma, residing in Gautam Budh Nagar, and the respondent, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Noida. This case pertains to the assessment year 2012-13, with the final tribunal order pronounced on August 16, 2019. The appeal was filed on February 1, 2019.
Shweta Sharma filed an appeal against the order dated September 28, 2018, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]-1, Noida, relating to the assessment year 2012-13. The appeal was heard by the Delhi Bench ‘SMC’ of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), comprising Shri R. K. Panda, Accountant Member.
The primary issue in this appeal was the addition of Rs. 24,82,668/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for commission expenses paid to Sh. Saurabh Malik and Sh. Vibhor Sharma. The AO made this addition due to the absence of satisfactory documentary evidence justifying the commission paid.
Shweta Sharma, an individual, initially had her assessment completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 on February 27, 2015, with a returned income of Rs. 9,04,530/-. The case was later set aside by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Ghaziabad, under section 263 on March 24, 2017, with instructions to the AO to re-verify the expenses claimed under the head commission expenses and commission expenses payable.
Subsequently, the AO issued statutory notices under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act to Shweta Sharma, requesting various details. The AO rejected the explanations provided by Shweta Sharma and made an addition of Rs. 24,82,668/- due to a lack of satisfactory documentary evidence supporting the commission paid.
Before the CIT(A), Shweta Sharma’s counsel argued that the order was passed without giving a fair opportunity to the appellant. The counsel mentioned that an application for adjournment was moved as the appellant’s counsel was out of station for audit purposes. Despite this, the CIT(A) proceeded with the order without granting the adjournment.
The CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO, leading Shweta Sharma to appeal before the ITAT.
During the hearing at ITAT, Shweta Sharma’s counsel reiterated the need for a fair opportunity to present the case, arguing that the CIT(A) failed to provide an opportunity for a proper hearing. The Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the CIT(A).
The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed the order on September 6, 2018, despite an adjournment application filed by the appellant. The application sought an adjournment on the grounds that the appellant’s counsel was out of station for audit purposes.
Considering the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, the tribunal decided to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity for Shweta Sharma to substantiate her case and to decide the issue based on the facts and law. The tribunal also directed Shweta Sharma to appear before the CIT(A) and cooperate in the hearing of the appeal. If the appellant fails to do so, the CIT(A) is at liberty to pass an appropriate order as per law.
In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal of Shweta Sharma for statistical purposes. The tribunal directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the case after providing a fair opportunity to the appellant to present her case.
The tribunal pronounced the order in the open court on August 16, 2019, directing the CIT(A) to provide a fair opportunity for the appellant to present her case.
Sd/- (R.K PANDA) Accountant Member
Date: 16.08.2019
Copy forwarded to:
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT, New Delhi
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform