vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B-BENCH” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ dey's k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-

fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@ Assessment Year : 2020-21 cuke M/s Baba Kanwar Ram Fruit Co. The ITO, New Subzi Mandi, Vs. Ward-1(2), Alwar. Alwar.

LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@

PAN/GIR No.: AALFB0861F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Assessee by : Sh. P.C. Parwal, C.A.

jktLo dh vksj ls Revenue by: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@

Date of Hearing : 26/05/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@

Date of Pronouncement: 26/05/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member Appellant-assessee is a firm. It has challenged order dated

20.02.2025, passed by Learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (in short “NFAC”) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”)

The matter pertains to the assessment year 2020-21.

The assessee was before NFAC, feeling aggrieved by the assessment order dated 05.09.2022, passed by the Assessing Officer. Vide impugned order, Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and consequently upheld the addition made.

2. As regards the addition, vide impugned order dated 05.09.2022, the Assessing Officer assessed total income of the assessee by making addition as depicted in the table below:-

Sl. Description Amount (in INR)

No.

1. Income as per return of income filed 19,46,350/- 2. Income as computed u/s 143(1)(a) 19,46,350/- 3. Add: disallowance of the discount 49,16,194/-

paid

4. Total income/loss determined as per 68,62,544/-

the above proposal

3. From the above said table, it is available that the Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 49,16,194/- claimed by the assessee by way of discount expenses.

4. Since, the impugned assessment order has been upheld the assessee is feeling dissatisfied, present appeal has been argued.

5. Arguments heard. File perused.

6. In the course of arguments, Ld. AR for the appellant has candidly admitted that during assessment proceedings, as regards some of the parties, namely, Suhel Singh and Company, Milap Indor, Sachin Bhimraj Deshmukh and Nandi Onion, Jalandhar, the assessee had furnished only concise ledger account, which did not contain, and as such, did not depict any entry relating to commission, what to say of any such discount.

Further submission of Ld. AR for the appellant is that in the paper book submitted before this Appellate Tribunal, the assessee has submitted copies of ledger accounts of Suhel Singh and Company, Milap Indor, Sachin Bhimraj Deshmukh and Nandi Onion, Jalandhar, and that to enable the AO to verify transactions recorded therein, and pass appropriate fresh orders on verified facts, matter may be remitted to the Assessing Officer.

7. As regards the above submission put forth by Ld. AR for the appellant, Ld. DR for the department submits that had complete record, instead of concise ledger accounts been made available by the assessee to the Assessing Officer, relevant transactions could be verified, but since the same were not produced, the Assessing Officer could had no opportunity to verify the same, and as such, the matter may be remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification of said facts and decide the matter afresh.

8. As is available from the assessment order, the assessee is engaged as commission agent, as regards onions. For the assessment year 2020-

21, the assessee declared its total income of Rs. 19,46,350/- as per return of income.

Admittedly, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS, notice u/s

143(2) of the Act was issued on 29.06.2021, followed by other notices u/s 142(1) of the Act. Complete scrutiny was to be made due to following two reasons:-

 High value cash withdrawals reported in SFT or u/s 194N (business return)

 Low income compared to large commission receipt.

As per case of the department, on p