IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2500/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 20 13-14)

Calyx Chemicals and v/s. Income Tax Officer, Pharmaceuticals Limited, बनाम Centre Circle – 4, Thane, 1408, 14^th Floor, Real Tech Maharashtra Park, Sector – 30A, Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400 703, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AABCC1457B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Appellant by : Shri Narayan Atal, AR Respondent by : Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan (Sr. DR)

Date of Hearing 02.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeal, CIT(A), Pune – 11 [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 28.03.2022 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2013-14.

2. The grounds of appeal are as under:

1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the AO in reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act, denying the submission made by the appellant in this regard.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the AO in denying the commission paid by the appellant amounting to Rs.20,04,504/- to M/s Reynolds Petro Chems. Ltd. during the year on the ground that the commission paid was non-genuine.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.20,04,504/- as disallowance of commission expenses, ignoring the fact that it was spent for the business purpose and claimed as deduction u/s 37 of the Act.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the AO in denying the claim of commission paid amounting to Rs. Rs.20,04,504/- alleging that appellant has not disclosed services provided by M/s Reynolds Petro Chems. Ltd. to whom commission was paid. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that appellant in its letter dated 18.08.2023 has specifically mentioned that M/s Reynolds Petro Chems. Ltd. was the procurement agent for raw material required by the company for which commission was paid to them.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Public Limited Company engaged in manufacturing and dealing in Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs), Intermediates and Contract Research. The case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act based on information received from DDIT(Inv.), Unit 3(3) Mumbai, that the assessee had transactions with M/s. Reynolds Petro Chems. Ltd. in the nature of commission amounting to Rs 20,04,540/-which a survey u/s 133A of the Act revealed it to be non genuine. Besides, another transaction with on M.D. Enterprises was also considered only a paper transaction based on certain other report from the Investigation wing of the department. In the subsequent appeal, the ld.CIT(A) upheld both the additions.

4. It may be stated here that before both the lower authorities, the assessee had contested the validity of the reopening and the consequential assessment order on the grounds that as a result of hon’ble NCLT order dated 16.04.2019, some other concerns had taken over the management of the assessee company. Accordingly, no reassessment action could have been taken u/s 148 of the Act in its case. It relied on decisions of hon’ble Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High court which were not appreciated by the above authorities. The ld.CIT(A) after calling for a remand report from the AO rejected the contentions of the assessee by holding that the judgment in the case of Ghanshya Mishra and sons P.Ltd(2021) 9SCC 657 did not apply to the facts of the case since it related to the issue of recovery of dues only. He also distinguished the decision in the case of Murli Industries Ltd in WP 2948 of 2021(Bombay HC).

5. Before us, the ld.DR has relied