##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.7771/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13)

Ankit Kantilal Dama v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income

2303, 23^rd Floor, B-Wing, बनाम Tax, Circle – 41(2)(1)

BhagtaniKrishaang, IRB Room No. 420, 4^th Floor, Road, S.M. Sheety School, KautilyaBhavan, BandraKurla Powai, Mumbai Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai

–400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं ./ जीआइआर सं ./ PAN/GIR No: AKUPD8399K

Appellant/अपीला्वी .. Respondent/्ቚतिवादी

Assessee by : Ms. NamrataChande,AR Revenue by: Shri HarendraVerma, (Sr. DR)

Date of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 24.03.2026

आदेश / O R D E R

PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The present appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order

dated 16.10.2025 as passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income- tax, Appeal, ADDL/JCIT(A) Panaji [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 13.03.2015 for the

Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2012-13.

P age | 2 ITA No. 7771/Mum/2025

A.Y. 2012-13 Ankit Kantilal Dama

2. The only effective ground of appeal is as under:

1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance made by Ld AO amounting to Rs. 17,31,772/- on account of commission expenses incurred

during the year under consideration.

3. Facts of the case are that the assessee claimed to have paid commission to various parties in connection with his business amounting to Rs. 17,91,697/-.It is engaged in business of dealing in plastic manufacturing machines and allied items. The AO in order to verify its genuineness issued notices to them u/s 133(6) of the Act some of whom confirmed purchases but none confirmation of any other service rendered to the assessee who claimed to have paid commission to them at the rate of 5% on sales to customers. However, the assessee failed to prove the genuineness thereof as no documentary evidences of services rendered was submitted. Therefore, the AO disallowed Rs 17,31,772/- as unproved commission expense. The ld.CIT(A) in the subsequent appeal filed by the assessee upheld the disallowance with the observations that the assessee did not submit original bills, vouchers as

also respective confirmations etc.

4.In the appeal filed before the Bench, the assessee filed a request for admission of certain additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules

P age | 3 ITA No. 7771/Mum/2025

A.Y. 2012-13 Ankit Kantilal Dama

claiming that these evidences prove the genuineness of such expenses which could not be produced before the lower authorities. It is submitted before the authorities below the assessee had already submitted ledger copies of parties/confirmations/appointment letters of parties to carry out said transactions/copy of Form no. 26AS/ITRS and computation of income ,their respective Balance sheets and profit and loss account etc. As part of additional evidence, it sought permission to file ledger confirmations of the parties and their bank statements to substantiate it claim. The ld.DR did not raise any objection to this

request.

5.On careful consideration of the above facts, we find that the disallowance has been made mainly on account of non production of certain vital details germane to the issue in hand. The assessee could not furnish the relevant details before the lower authorities. However, such additional evidences are being sought for admission before us. We find that these are relevant for proper adjudication of the disputed issue. We therefore, admit the same. However, as the same needs to be considered by the lower authorities, we consider it appropriate to set aside the appellate order and send back the entire issue to the file of the AO with a direction to consider the additional evidences and make the assessment de novo after allowing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee

P age | 4 ITA No. 7771/Mum/2025

A.Y.