IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER&

SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2014-15]

Raj Kumar Daga, 7/18, Kalkaji, New Delhi	V s	The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 30 (1) New Delhi-110002
PAN No.AAHPD1424G
Appellant		Respondent

Assessee by Sh. Mayank Patawari, Advocate Revenue by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 29.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM, The captioned appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 13.11.2023 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’] arising out of assessment order dated 28.12.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15.

2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is wrong is determining the total income at Rs.72,14,835/-

2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A) is wrong is ignoring all material fact and evidence produced before her while computing the total in come.

3. That the computation of total income is bad in law and is against the actual facts-and. evidence on record.

4. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not allowing commission of Rs. 41,55,067/.

5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, amplify or delete any or all of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing

6. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not allowing donation of Rs. 12,100/-

7. That the Learned CIT(A)has further erred in charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act and raising an aggregate demand of Rs. 17,79,400/-. Thus failing to appreciate that no such interest was leviable on the facts of the instant case and in any case and without prejudice the same had to be calculated in accordance with the statutory provisions.

3. The assessee has contested the addition of Rs.41,55,067/- on account of commission expenses, through grounds of appeal no.1 to 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trader in steel and is proprietor of Anupam Steel Centre. The main issue is addition of Rs. 41,55,067-, made on account of disallowance of expense of commission & brokerage paid to 24 parties. The ld. AO has noted that assessee has been carrying on the same business for the last many years but neither in the preceding years nor in the subsequent years any claim of commission and brokerage expense was made. When confronted, assessee submitted as under:

"The assessee proprietor has not claimed any Brokerage/Commission in respect of sale in the A. Y. 2013-14 but in A. Y. 2014-15 as due to change in Government in the captioned year affecting adversely the economy and trade, the assessee was not able to procure any sales order which resulted in drastic fall in sales from Rs.20.98.57, 157.69/- to Rs. 16,89,31,034/-"

4. On the basis of the details of commission paid, the ld. AO observed that there is no link between the change of government and the questions/queries raised in the Show Cause Notice issued to the assessee. It was noted that the change of Government took place on 26 May. 2014ie. after the completion of the Financial Year which ended on 31.03.2014 relevant to the assessment year under consideration. He further observed that a close look at the chart of Commission paid submitted by the assessee reveals that sum of Rs.40,60,252/- i.e. 97.14% of the total Commission has been paid only in the month of March, 2014 and majority of the cheques were issued on the last day of the Financial Year i.e. 31.03.2014. Then, the ld. AO requested the assessee to produce the parties to whom the commission was paid. However, on the stipulated date, assessee did not produce even a single party. Therefore, he gave one more opportunity to the assessee and again requested the assessee to produc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document